1. + RIGHT TO LIFE Regina Valutyte Mykolas Romeris University

2. + The scope of the right to life  Article 2 of the ECHR states:  Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally, save to the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.  Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necassary:  in defence of any person from unlawful violance;  In order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained  In action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

3. + “ Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law” 1. Definition of “everyone” 2. Life v. right to life

4. + Abortion The case-law that in the circumstances examined to date by the Convention institutions – that is, in the various laws on abortion – the unborn child is not regarded as a “person” directly protected by Article 2 of the Convention and that if the unborn do have a “right” to “life”, it is implicitly limited by the mother’s rights and interests. The Convention institutions have not, however, ruled out the possibility that in certain circumstances safeguards may be extended to the unborn child. The issue has always been determined by weighing up various, and sometimes conflicting, rights or freedoms claimed by a woman, a mother or a father in relation to one another or vis-à-vis an unborn child. Vo v. France, 8 July 2004

5. + “ Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law” Right to die?

6. Can life-support machines be switched off even before a person is “clinically dead” (whenever that may be), in order not to unduly extend the dying process? Is it acceptable to provide palliative care to a terminally ill or dying person, even if the treatment may, as a side-effect, contribute to the shortening of the patient’s life? Has a seriously physically ill but mentally fit person a right to choose to die by committing suicide rather than to go on living? Can that person seek assistance from others in the taking of his or her life? Has a state the right, or the duty, to intervene to prevent this?

7. + “ Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”. Effective criminal law provisions; Preventive messures (e.g. effective protection of the life of a person in custody; to protection of the life of the individual from third parties or from the risk of life-endangering illness (Osman v. the United Kingdom, 28 October 1998, §§ 115-22; L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, §§ 36-41); Effective official investigation. The investigation must be capable of: ascertaining the circumstances in which the incident took place leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. A requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition is implicit in this context. Positive nature of the duty

8. + Exceptions to the right to life 1) Requirement of necessity: “the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims” McCann v. UK, §§ 148-149; Kelly v. UK, & 93) 2) Lawful exceptions (a) The death penalty; (b) Self-defense or defense of another; (c) The apprehension of an individual to prevent an escape or effect a lawful arrest; (d) Quelling a riot or insurrection.

9. + The death penalty  Article 2 of the ECHR: “save to the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law”;  Protocol 6 of the ECHR: “The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed. A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions”.  Protocol 13 of the ECHR: “The death penalty shall be abolished. No one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed”.

10. + The death penalty as inhuman and degrading treatment Al-Saadoon & Mufdhi v. the UK, no. 61498/08  60 years ago, when the Convention was drafted, the death penalty had not been considered to violate international standards. However, there had been a subsequent evolution towards its complete abolition, in law and in practice, within all the Member States of the Council of Europe. Two Protocols to the Convention had thus entered into force, abolishing the death penalty in time of war (Protocol 6) and in all circumstances (Protocol 13).  Article 2 of the Convention had been amended so as to prohibit the death penalty in all circumstances. Therefore, the death penalty, which involved the deliberate and premeditated destruction of a human being by the State authorities, causing physical pain and intense psychological suffering as a result of the foreknowledge of death, could be considered inhuman and degrading and, as such, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

11. + Exceptions to the right to life Requirement of necessity: “the force used must be strictly proportionate to the achievement of the permitted aims” McCann v. UK, §§ 148-149; Kelly v. UK, & 93) States are under a duty to take “appropriate care” in the planning, organization and control of operations. Lawful exceptions (a) Self-defense or defense of another ( ) (a) Self-defense or defense of another (McCann v. UK; Andronicou and Constantinou v. Cyprus) (b) The apprehension of an individual to prevent an escape or effect a lawful arrest ( ); (b) The apprehension of an individual to prevent an escape or effect a lawful arrest (Gul v. Turkey, Matzarakis v. Greece); (c) Quelling a riot or insurrection () (c) Quelling a riot or insurrection ( İ smail Altun v. Turkey)