Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Protection Against Crime as a Human Right: Positive Obligations of the Police

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Police and International Human Rights Law

Abstract

The police are seen as a professional service provider when their duties and standards of care are enforced by the clients of their service, that is ordinary individuals. Actual or potential victims of crime use constitutional review, which examines positive obligations of the police in relation to specific human rights. Within the scope and limits of constitutional review, police duties are determined before, as well as after, harm has been inflicted on innocent individuals. These duties encompass both systemic and more specific and practical measures of protection of human rights against crime. The individual form of protection is subject to certain conditions of proximity (such as the element of knowledge of the personal need for human rights protection). Additional limits are recognised where there is a conflict of rights, and in relation to the availability of resources. Accordingly, the professional duties and requisite performance standards of the police are determined, reviewed and enforced under a consistent legal framework.

Dr Dimitris Xenos is a Lecturer at the University of Suffolk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Murdoch (2001); Buckley (2001), pp. 35–65; Reidy et al. (1997), pp. 161–173; Greer (2006), pp. 27–28; Koku v Turkey App no 27305/95 (ECHR, 31 May 2005); Osmanoglu v Turkey App no 48804/99 (ECHR, 24 January 2008); Gongadze v Ukraine App no 34056/02 (ECHR, 8 November 2005); Asadulayeva and Others v Russia App no 15569/06 (ECHR, 17 September 2009); Varnava and Others v Turkey App no 16064/90 (ECHR, 18 September 2009); Isaak v Turkey App no 44587/98 (ECHR, 24 June 2008); Solomou and Others v Turkey App no 36832/97 (ECHR, 24 June 2008); Gaysanova v Russia App no 62235/09 (ECHR, 12 May 2016). See also relevant papers presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016: Smith (2016), Stanchevska (2016), Garanina (2016), Heinz (2016), Goodey (2016).

  2. 2.

    In appropriate circumstances, a judicial review may also be initiated by a pressure group, see, e.g., R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement [1995] 1 WLR 386 (the ‘Pergau Dam case’).

  3. 3.

    M. and Others v Italy and Bulgaria App no 40020/03 (ECHR, 31 July 2012), para. 147: ‘Account must also be taken of any relevant rules and principles of international law applicable in relations between the Contracting Parties and the Convention should so far as possible be interpreted in harmony with other rules of international law of which it forms part’ (cited cases omitted). See also Forowicz (2010).

  4. 4.

    Xenos (2012a), pp. 112, 115–118.

  5. 5.

    Gungorv Turkey App no 28290/95 (ECHR, 22 March 2005), para 69.

  6. 6.

    Xenos, n 4; Drögue (2003); Mowbray (2004). See also UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligations Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, paras 6 and 8.

  7. 7.

    Delfi v Estonia App no 64569/09 (ECHR, 16 June 2015), para 4: ‘Although the primary purpose of the Convention system is to provide individual relief, its mission is also to determine issues on public policy grounds in the common interest, thereby raising the general standards of protection of human rights and extending human rights jurisprudence throughout the community of the Convention States (cited case omitted).

  8. 8.

    X and Y v the Netherlands App no 8978/80 (ECHR, 26 March 1985).

  9. 9.

    Osman v the United Kingdom App no 23452/94 (ECHR, 28 October 1998), para. 115; Kontrova v Slovakia App no 7510/04 (ECHR, 31 May 2007), para. 49.

  10. 10.

    Ashworth (2013).

  11. 11.

    The first condition for a lawful interference with human rights (esp. in Articles 8–11) requires that the interference must be regulated by law, e.g. Article 8(2), ECHR: ‘There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law’.

  12. 12.

    This is the known Roman maxim of nulla poena sine lege.

  13. 13.

    See also Paul and Audrey Edwards v the United Kingdom App no 46477/99 (ECHR, 14 March 2002); Maiorano and Others v Italy App no 28634/06 (ECHR, 15 December 2009); Choreftakis and Choreftaki v Greece App no 46846/08 (ECHR, 7 January 2012).

  14. 14.

    Ashworth, n 10, p. 150.

  15. 15.

    See, e.g., the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (2011) that the European Parliament blocked its ratification on 4 July 2012. For criminal offences in copyright law, see, e.g., the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, sections 107–110.

  16. 16.

    See the dissenting opinion of judge Rozakis, joined by judge Bonello in Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy App no 32967/96 (ECHR, 17 January 2002). Cf. UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 34 on Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34 (replacing General Comment No. 10), para 9.

  17. 17.

    Pretty v the United Kingdom App no 2346/02 (ECHR, 29 April 2002), para. 61; Van Kuck v Germany App no 35968/97 (ECHR, 12 June 2003), para. 69. This interpretation has been influenced by the German constitutional provision of Article 2 of the Basic Rights (Grundrechte) of 1949: ‘Everybody has the right to the free development of his personality, as long as he does not violate the rights of others and does not contravene the constitutional order or moral laws.’

  18. 18.

    Opuz v Turkey App no 33401/02 (ECHR, 9 June 2009); Branduse v Romania App no 6586/03, (ECHR, 7 April 2009).

  19. 19.

    Article 34, ECHR. See also Klass and Others v Germany App no 5029/71 (ECHR, 6 September 1978); Monnat v Switzerland App no 73604/01 (ECHR, 21 September 2006), para 31.

  20. 20.

    Osman v the United Kingdom, n 9.

  21. 21.

    Ibid., para. 115. Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia App no 25965/04 (ECHR, 7 January 2010), para. 218; Opuz v Turkey, n 18, para 128.

  22. 22.

    Ibid, para 282: ‘ the Court concludes that trafficking itself, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of the Palermo Protocol [the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2000] and Article 4(a) of the Anti-Trafficking Convention [the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, CETS No. 197, 16 May 2005] falls within the scope of Article 4 of the Convention [ECHR]’.

  23. 23.

    Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, para. 286.

  24. 24.

    See also Flogaitis and Petrou (2006). See also Anti-Trafficking Directive, Article 18 (Prevention).

  25. 25.

    Fielding (1758). It was quoted in Chadwick (1829), pp. 252–308, 280.

  26. 26.

    See n 3 and 7.

  27. 27.

    Styles (1987), pp. 15–22, 17.

  28. 28.

    Fielding (1755).

  29. 29.

    See also Anti-Trafficking Directive, Article 11 (5,7) and the Victims Directive, Articles 8, 9 and 26.

  30. 30.

    McCann and Others v the United Kingdom App no 18984/91 (ECHR, 27 September 1995). De Sanctis (2006), pp. 31–44. See also Anti-Trafficking Directive, Article 9(3) and Article 18 (3) and the Victims Directive, Article 25. Suntinger (2016) (in this volume).

  31. 31.

    Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, paras 155, 167, 287 quoting Article 10 of the Palermo Protocol and the Anti-Trafficking Convention, n 22.

  32. 32.

    Osman v the United Kingdom, n 9, para 115.

  33. 33.

    Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, para 286.

  34. 34.

    Opuz v Turkey, n 18, paras 147, 173. See also Kilic v Turkey App no 22492/93 (ECHR, 28 March 2000). See also Philip Afuson Njaru v Cameroon (2007) UN Doc. CCPR/C/89/D/1353/2005, para 6.3.

  35. 35.

    Gungor v Turkey App no 28290/95 n (ECHR, 22 March 2005), para. 60. See also, Sakine Epözdemir and Others v Turkey App no 26589/06 (ECHR, 1 December 2015).

  36. 36.

    Kilic v Turkey, n 34, paras 55, 66. The Court referred also to previous case law regarding the same factual situations and ‘pattern of attacks’. See also Ozgur Gundem v Turkey App no 23144/93 (ECHR, 16 March 2000), and the high-profile case of Dink v Turkey App nos 2668/07, . . ., 7124/09 (ECHR, 14 September 2010).

  37. 37.

    Opuz v Turkey, n 18, paras 147 and 173.

  38. 38.

    Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, paras 83, 89, 291 and 294: ‘There can therefore be no doubt that the Cypriot authorities were aware that a substantial number of foreign women, particularly from the ex USSR, were being trafficked to Cyprus on artistes visas and, upon arrival, were being sexually exploited by cabaret owners and managers.’

  39. 39.

    Ibid., para. 297, as to the substantive action see, para 130.

  40. 40.

    See n 36. Xenos (2012b), pp. 767–783.

  41. 41.

    Kontrova v Slovakia, n 9, para. 54. See also the Victims Directive, Articles 18–24.

  42. 42.

    Article 10 of Palermo Protocol and the Anti-Trafficking Convention, n 22. See also the Victims Directive, Articles 18–24.

  43. 43.

    Osman v the United Kingdom, n 9, para. 115: The ‘primary duty on the State to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offences against the person’ (emphasis added). See also the Anti-Trafficking Directive, Article 18 (4).

  44. 44.

    Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21; Gungor v Turkey, n 35, para 67. See also Mohamed Grioua v Algeria (2007) UN Doc. CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004, para 7.10.

  45. 45.

    Menson and Others v the United Kingdom (dec.) App no 47916/99 (ECHR, 6 May 2003); Mantog v Romania (No. 2) App no 2893/02 (ECHR, 11 October 2007); Uzeyir Jafarov v Azerbaijan App no 54204/08 (ECHR, 29 January 2015). See also Philip Afuson Njaru v Cameroon (2007) UN Doc. CCPR/C/89/D/1353/2005, para 5.3.

  46. 46.

    Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, after para 223.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., para 232. See also Association ‘21 December 1989’ and Others v Romania App nos 33810/07, 18817/08 (ECHR, 24 May 2011), cf Giuliani and Gaggio v Italy App no 23458/02 (ECHR, 24 March 2011). See also Salem Saad Ali Bashasha and Milhoud Ahmed Hussein Bashasha v The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2010) UN Doc. CCPR/C/100/D/1776/2008. See also the Anti-Trafficking Directive, Article 9.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., para 289. See also the Victims Directive, Article 17.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para 246.

  50. 50.

    Paul and Audrey Edwards v the United Kingdom, n 13, para 69; Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, para. 233.

  51. 51.

    Yaşa v Turkey App no 22495/93 (ECHR, 2 September 1998), paras 102–104; Çakıcı v Turkey App no 23657/93 (ECHR, 2 September 1998), paras 80-87 and 106; Kelly and Others v the United Kingdom App no 30054/96 (ECHR, 4 May 2001), para 97; Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, para 233. See also Sundara Arachchige Lalith Rajapakse v Sri Lanka (2006) UN Doc. CCPR/C/83/D/1250/2004, para 9.5.

  52. 52.

    Dink v Turkey, n 36, para 79.

  53. 53.

    Hugh Jordan v the United Kingdom App no 24746/94 (ECHR, 4 May 2001), para 120; Kelly and Others v the United Kingdom, n 51, para 114; Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, n 21, para 233. See also Salem Saad Ali Bashasha, n 47, para 7.3.

  54. 54.

    Uzeyir Jafarov v Azerbaijan, n 45, para 51.

  55. 55.

    Golder v the United Kingdom App no 4451/70 (ECHR, 21 February 1975), para. 45; Osman v the United Kingdom, n 9, para. 116. Murdoch (1998), pp. 31–48. Guillén Lasierra (2016).

  56. 56.

    Siegert (2016).

  57. 57.

    Austin and Others v the United Kingdom App nos 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09 (ECHR, 15 March 2012).

  58. 58.

    Brems (2008).

  59. 59.

    Warbrick (1983), pp. 82–119, 85: ‘[t]he “fundamental” rights clash one with another and a balance needs [sic] must be struck between them in particular cases. Neither the enumerated rights themselves nor the balance which must be struck between them are “neutral” between possible ways of organising society or values which may be pursued.’

  60. 60.

    K.-W. V Germany App no 37201/97 (ECHR, 22 March 2001), para. 75; Isaak v Turkey, n 1, para. 103; Solomou and Others v Turkey, n 1, para 63.

  61. 61.

    See also Opuz v Turkey, n 18, para 147: ‘In any event, the Court would underline that in domestic violence cases perpetrators’ [Article 8 rights, i.e. family life] cannot supersede victims’ human rights to life and to physical and mental integrity’.

  62. 62.

    Feldman (1999), pp. 117–144; Jowell (2000), pp. 671–683; Klatt and Meister (2012); Gerards (2013), pp. 466–490. A stricter test of necessity (proportionality) applies under the right to life, see, e.g., Andreou v Turkey App no 16094/90 (ECHR, 27 October 2009); Nachova and Others v Bulgaria App nos 43577/98 43579/98 (ECHR, 6 July 2005); Soare and Others v Romania App nos 43577/98 43579/98 (ECHR, 22 February 2011); cf Finogenov and Others v Russia App nos 18299/03 27311/03 (ECHR, 20 December 2011).

  63. 63.

    Makaratzis v Greece App no 50385/99 (ECHR, 20 December 2004); Leonidis v Greece App no 43326/05 (ECHR, 8 January 2009); Wasilewska and Kalucka v Poland App nos 28975/04 33406/04 (ECHR, 23 February 2010).

  64. 64.

    Ergi v Turkey App no 23818/94 (ECHR, 28 July 1998), para 79; Abdurashidova v Russia App no 32968/05 (ECHR, 8 April 2010), para 79.

  65. 65.

    Halit Dinc v Turkey App no 32597/96 (ECHR, 19 September 2006), paras 49, 55–56.

  66. 66.

    Murdoch (2001), n 1. See also Skendžić and Krznarić v Croatia App no 16212/08 (ECHR, 20 January 2011).

  67. 67.

    Osman v the United Kingdom, n 9, para 116; Mahmu Kaya v Turkey App no 22535/93 (ECHR, 28 March 2000), para. 86.

  68. 68.

    Osman v the United Kingdom, n 9, paras 104–105.

  69. 69.

    Plattform ‘Arzte für das Leben v Austria App no 10126/82, (ECHR, 21 June 1988).

  70. 70.

    Ibid paras 35–39.

References

  • Ashworth A (2013) Positive obligations in criminal law. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Brems E (ed) (2008) Conflicts between fundamental rights. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

  • Buckley C (2001) The European Convention on human rights and the right to life in Turkey. Human Rights Law Rev 1(1):35–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick E (1829) Preventive police. London Rev 1:252–308

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sanctis F (2006) What duties do states have with regard to the rules of engagement and the training of security forces under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Int Law Human Rights 10(1):31–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drögue C (2003) Positive Verpflichtungen der Staaten in der Europaischen Menschenrechtskonvention. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman D (1999) Proportionality and the Human Rights Act 1998. In: Ellis E (ed) The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe. Hart, Oxford, pp 117–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding J (1755) A plan for preventing robberies within miles of London with an account of the rise and establishment of the real thieftakers. A Millar, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding H (1758) An account of the origin and effects of a police set on foot by his grace the Duke of Newcastle, in the year 1753. A Millar, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Flogaitis S, Petrou C (2006) Les avancés du principe de précaution en droit public grec. RHDI 59:449–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Forowicz M (2010) The reception of international law in the European Court of Human Rights. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garanina I (2016) The police and the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerards J (2013) How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights? ICON 11(2):466–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodey J (2016) Police and equality; ethnic profiling. Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law. Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Greer S (2006) The European Convention on Human Rights: achievements, problems and prospects. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guillén Lasierra F (2016) Deprivation of liberty by the police. Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinz WS (2016) The police and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT). Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Jowell J (2000) Beyond the rule of law: towards constitutional judicial review. Public Law:671–683

    Google Scholar 

  • Klatt M, Meister M (2012) The constitutional structure of proportionality. OUP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray A (2004) The development of positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch J (1998) A survey of recent case law under Article 5 ECHR. ELR (SUPP HR) 23:31–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch J (2001) Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights – the protection of liberty and security of person (Human Rights Files No. 12 revised). Council of Europe, Strasbourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Reidy A, Hampson F, Boyle K (1997) Gross violations of human rights: invoking the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Turkey. NQHR 15(2):161–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegert K (2016) The police and the human right to peaceful assembly. Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith G (2016) Effective investigations of allegations of ill-treatment or unlawful killing: Independent police complaint mechanisms. Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanchevska A (2016) The police and the Subcommittee for Prevention of the United Nations Committee against Torture (SPT): National Preventive Mechanisms. Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Styles J (1987) The emergence of the police. Br J Criminol 27(1):15–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suntinger W (2016) International human rights standards and police training. Paper presented at the international conference on the police and international human rights law, Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, 28–30 April 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Warbrick C (1983) The European Convention on Human Rights and the prevention of terrorism. ICLQ 32:82–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xenos D (2012a) The positive obligations of the state under the European Convention of Human Rights. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Xenos D (2012b) The issue of safety of media professionals and human rights defenders in the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee. Chin J Int Law 11(4):767–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Suffolk, Ipswich, UK

    Dimitris Xenos

Authors
  1. Dimitris Xenos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitris Xenos .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, Germany

    Ralf Alleweldt

  2. Brandenburg University of Applied Police Sciences, Oranienburg, Germany

    Guido Fickenscher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Xenos, D. (2018). The Protection Against Crime as a Human Right: Positive Obligations of the Police. In: Alleweldt, R., Fickenscher, G. (eds) The Police and International Human Rights Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71339-7_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71339-7_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71338-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71339-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation