Legal Research (ECHR) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Legal Research (ECHR) - Essay Example 53924/00, ECHR 2000 [http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=370] The article examines the range of the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 2), regarding the unborn foetus. In the case of Vo V France, the focus is on the jurisprudence of the ECHR on a country’s duty to life protection in view of both charitable and involuntary, neglectful extinction of pregnancies. According to the laws of abortion of Europe and United States, a gradualist ethical viewpoint on the embryo status could substantiate the obligation of criminal punishments for foetal death resulting from aggressive conduct against an expectant woman without discrimination to the woman’s rights. In the case of Vo v. France, Mrs. Thi-Nho Vo (applicant) was a Vietnamese born staying in France. She visited Lyons General Hospital on November 17, 19991 to have regular medical check during her six months of pregnancy. Another woman, Mrs. Thi Thanh van Vo, had visited the same hospit al the same day to remove the coil. Because of a mistake due to sharing of a common name by the two women, he physician who examined the first woman perforated amniotic sac, facilitating therapeutic abortion. Although the complainant and her husband lodged a claimant in 199, the physician was acquitted by the Court of Cassation on 30 June 1999. Basing on Article 2 of European Convention, the applicants lodged complain on the government’s refusal to categorize the inadvertent killing of the unborn child as involuntary homicide. The Grand Chamber considered that the subject of the start of life was an issue to be determined at national stage; since the subject had not been determined in the many of the members of the Convention, France in particular, where the matter was an issue of public discussion. Also, the decision made since there was no universal European agreement on the legal and scientific definition of the start of life. That is, at European level, of consensus was p resent regarding the status and nature of the embryo and foetus; although it could be considered universal ground between countries that the foetus/embryo belonged to humanity. Its capacity to become a human being needed protection in terms of human dignity, devoid of making it an individual with the liberty of life for reasons of Article 21. Moreover, all the nine adjudicators who joined the like-minded and dissenting views felt the issue of whether a foetus lies within the protection of article 2 is in the province of the Court to ascertain. Nonetheless, the ECHR should have accomplished its duty by analyzing the Convention and its procedures to understand the extent of ‘everyone’ in regard to article 2. Because of these fundamental and serious objections towards bringing a foetus in the protective sector of the ECHR, Judge Rozakis, together with several judges on the panel were correctly concerned to mention the fault in the Court’s analysis; that, while decli ning to approve that Article 2 was appropriate in this court case, the majority decided to abandon their neutral position based the conclusion of non violation on the assertion that the technical guarantees natural in the defense of Article 2 had already been gratified in the states of this court case. Through the application the ‘even assuming’ method on the suitability of Article 2; and by linking the life of the foetus to that of the mother—paragraph 86—the greater part had surreptiously brought the Conventions’