|
Topics:
|
|
|---|---|
Words: |
1144 |
Pages:
|
3
This essay sample was donated by a student to help the academic community. Papers provided by EduBirdie writers usually outdo students' samples.
|
Cite this essay
Download
In the case of D.H. And Others v The Czech Republic, in 2007, 18 people who are Czech nationals of Roma origin accused the Czech Republic violated Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 2 of Protocol No.1. The key facts of the case are as follow:
Before analyzing the judgment of ECtHR, I would like to talk about the reason why I chose the case. It is because the case is a landmark in ECtHR which has a lot of legal and wider societal significance.
Firstly, the judgment provoked discussion about Toma’s disadvantaged status in Europe, which was a very good chance to promote the human rights protection of the Roma. As we all know, almost all of Roma's people have been living in poor living conditions throughout their history. In addition, the major culture of European does not accept the Roma. As a result, most Roma live in a vacuum. According to New and Merry’s research in 2010, although Roma still suffering from discrimination in many areas since the judgment, some non-Roma people have begun to speak for Roma people, which cannot be imagined before. On the other hand, Smekal and Šipulová argued that the judgment brought an outburst of racism to the Czech. For instance, some people launched a vitriolic attack on the Roma there. However, every progress comes with labor pains. This is, by all means, a step change in protections for the Roma people.
Secondly, the ruling set a precedent for future indirect discrimination cases. In other words, it means ECtHR now recognizes indirect discrimination involved in Article 14. Indirect discrimination is an important principle in the theory of equality. This is because sometimes a neutral measure could lead to an unequal result between different groups of people and it is hard to make a distinction between direct discrimination and indirect discrimination. Although the ECtHR did not provide clear guidance to recognize indirect discrimination, it did define some characteristics of it. For example, intent is not sine qua non of indirect discrimination. The Grand Chamber of ECtHR claimed that it is not necessary to consider intent in the case.
At last, the ECtHR accepted statistics to be adduced as a witness to the indirect discrimination, which is an elevating measure. This is the first time ECtHR has used statistics as an approach to consider social context. As the key facts of the case show, the ECtHR found Roma suffered a disproportionately prejudicial effect from the progress by analyzing statistics. It is elevating because it is hard to recognize indirect discrimination with the eye of an individual victim. In other words, the neutral measure in the treatment would all people to realize the inequality within it. Now by using statistics, people could easily avoid analyzing the measure and find the inequality of result becoming visible.
After doing research, I conclude that I do agree with the judgment that there was a violation of Article 14. The main reason is that the result of a special school for the Roma community was apparent. However, the case is highly controversial. In this section, I will analyze some reasons why some people disagree with the ruling and abstract the element of indirect discrimination from the case.
Firstly, Judge Borrego who counters the ruling holds that the consent of the parents should be taken into consideration. There is indeed a possibility that the harmful result could be avoided if
Roma's parents did not accept those decisions to place their children in special school. However, it was an unfortunate necessity because of their historical disadvantages. As ECtHR identified, It was a hard choice for Roma parents, letting their child risk isolation and ostracism or going to special schools where the majority of students were Roma. In other words, the consent was on account of their historical disadvantages. Article 14 presupposes that some groups of people need to be protected because of their disadvantages. Therefore, the conclusion that there was no discrimination because their parents agreed is a non sequitur.
Secondly, some judges claimed that the Czech Republic instead of being passive to the issue of Roma education like most other countries which seems to be lower risk to them, took the high road in dealing with the Roma’s education problem. They thought it might lead to a worse situation for Roma that the authorities would not be willing to adopt positive action to promote Roma children’s education in the future. The argument is not acceptable because the authorities have a positive obligation to promote the protection of human rights. In the protection of human rights, neither ‘lower-risk’ passive measures nor ‘harmful’ positive measures are agreeable. It is not appropriate to be pressured into a wrong treatment because afraid of another.
Lastly, I would like to do a brief analysis of the element of indirect discrimination based on the case.
In most cases, If all those four elements are involved Because of word limitations, the explanation could not be expanded enough. I will complete it in my future research.
Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.
Fair Use Policy
EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via support@edubirdie.com.
Stuck on your essay?
