State Immunity Trumps Rights to Fair Trial and Freedom from Torture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Abstract: This note aims to highlight recent developments in European human rights law through the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court). The author of this note reviews the Court’s judgment in Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, involving a civil claim brought in domestic courts against a foreign state for alleged acts of torture. The case, as in Bouzari v Iran, brings into play the competing international imperatives of state immunity and human rights enforcement. After reviewing the facts of the case, the author examines the court’s decision regarding the Applicant’s rights under the Convention, namely, his right to a judicial determination of civil claims as guaranteed by the right to a fair trial (Article 6) and his right not to be tortured (Article 3). The Court unanimously held that the Applicant’s rights under Article 3 had not been violated. The court was split 9-8 on the Article 6 issue, the majority holding that the violation was proportional and reasonable. The author finds that the court’s decision was flawed in two respects. Nonetheless, Al-Adsani is an important decision representing a unanimous and unequivocal statement of the fact that the human right to be free from torture is today a peremptory norm. French Abstract: Cette note vise a mettre en evidence l’evolution recente du droit europeen des droits de l’homme en examinant la jurisprudence de la Cour europeenne des droits de l’homme (la Cour). L’auteur de la presente note passe en revue l’arret de la Cour dans l’affaire Al-Adsani c Royaume-Uni, qui porte sur une poursuite civile intentee dans un tribunal national contre un Etat etranger pour des allegations de torture. Cet arret, tel que l’arret Bouzari c Iran, met en jeu deux imperatifs internationaux en concurrence, soit, l’immunite des Etats et la mise en œuvre des droits de l’homme. Apres avoir examine les faits, l’auteur examine la decision de la Cour concernant les droits du requerant aux termes de la Convention, a savoir son droit a une decision judiciaire de poursuites civiles garantie par le droit a un proces equitable (Article 6) et son droit de ne pas etre torture (Article 3). La Cour a conclu a l’unanimite que les droits du requerant en matiere de l’article 3 n’avaient pas ete violes. La Cour etait divisee 9-8 sur la question de l’article 6, la majorite affirmant que la violation etait proportionnelle et raisonnable. L’auteur constate que la decision de la Cour a ete viciee a deux egards. Neanmoins, Al-Adsani est une decision importante representant une declaration unanime et sans equivoque du fait que l’interdiction de la torture est aujourd’hui une norme imperative du droit international.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".