Your assignment is to prepare and submit a paper on functions of article 3 echr; provision or enforcement of standards.

Your assignment is to prepare and submit a paper on functions of article 3 echr; provision or enforcement of standards. This is a question that might get so many awkward answers if a clear interpretation of the article is not given. The first question any person would ask before answering this question is whether the convention has any jurisdiction to influence laws on crime and social support in countries outside Europe. The provisions of Article one of the ECHR have been a tough nut to crack particularly because the stipulations in the article are a little confusing and to some extent ambiguous. The bone of contention in this article is usually the extra-territorial authority of the convention. Miller set to establish the boundaries of the convention authority and found out that the extra-territorial authority of the convention was in question1. She admitted that that article one of the convention doesn’t give the clear amplitude of the convention’s jurisdiction and continued to stress that the convention’s participation in the ‘war on terror’ campaign only soured the wound rather than disinfect it. In a bid to avoid the contentious issue of its jurisdiction, the convention has referred to its ties with other internationally recognized bodies such as the United Nations. For example in the Behrami v. France case and the Saramati v. France case, the ECHR where the issue of the convention’s jurisdiction was raised and the convention decided to counterattack these concerns play playing the card of its relations with the UN charter. Ryngaert examined the time where the scope of ECHR’s jurisdiction that was presented when looking at the Al-Skeini v the United Kingdom case2. The case was brought to the attention of ECHR by six Iraqi natives who had close family and social ties with some Iraqi citizens whose lives were ended by British soldiers in a town that is south of Iraq know as Basrah. The six brought the case to the ECHR in form of an appeal claiming that the UK had gone against the sentiments articulated in articles three and two of the convention as the soldiers inflicted pain and killed the Iraqis in one of their detention facilities. Articles two and three are against the brutal treatment of any individual and the separation of an individual with his or her life. However, the main concern when handling the case was not whether UK had indeed breached the stipulations of articles two or three but whether the location where these acts were committed fell under the legal jurisdiction of the ECHR. After presiding over that case an opinion that people outside ECHR’s reach who have been affected by a breach of the conventions acts could bring the perpetrators of the heinous acts into the ECHR’s immediate jurisdiction for prosecution. However, the ECHR did not confirm these allegations. The ECtHR& ECHR has the mandate to conduct its endeavours to the citizens of the 47 signatory states of the COE but doesn’t add the convention and its court can practise outside the states under the COE3. Just by looking at the jurisdiction concerns of the convention the answer to the question is already a big resounding no. But what if we turn a blind eye it the conventions issue of jurisdiction and assume the convention had the global jurisdiction.