ECHR vs. Tribunals

Attribute	ECHR	Tribunals
Establishment	Established by the European Convention on Human Rights	Established by specific laws or regulations
Jurisdiction	Deals with human rights violations in European countries	Can have jurisdiction over specific areas or types of cases
Decision-making body	European Court of Human Rights	Varies depending on the specific tribunal
Enforcement	Decisions are legally binding on member states	Decisions may need to be enforced through national courts

Introduction

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and tribunals are both important institutions that play a crucial role in upholding justice and protecting human rights. While they serve similar purposes, there are key differences in their attributes and functions that set them apart. In this article, we will explore and compare the attributes of ECHR and tribunals to gain a better understanding of their roles in the legal system.

Composition

The ECHR is composed of judges from each of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe. These judges are elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and serve a non-renewable term of nine years. In contrast, tribunals are typically composed of a panel of experts or judges who are appointed based on their expertise in a particular area of law. The composition of tribunals can vary depending on the specific jurisdiction and purpose of the tribunal.

Jurisdiction

The ECHR has jurisdiction over all member states of the Council of Europe and is responsible for ensuring that these states comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. This means that individuals can bring cases against member states to the ECHR if they believe their rights under the Convention have been violated. Tribunals, on the other hand, have a more limited jurisdiction and are typically established to address specific legal issues or disputes within a particular jurisdiction.

Decision-Making Process

Decisions made by the ECHR are binding on the member states of the Council of Europe, and states are required to implement the Court's judgments. The ECHR has the authority to issue binding decisions on member states, which can have far-reaching implications for national laws and policies. In contrast, decisions made by tribunals are typically binding only on the parties involved in the case and do not have the same level of authority as decisions made by the ECHR.

Role in Upholding Human Rights

One of the primary functions of the ECHR is to uphold and protect human rights in Europe. The Court plays a crucial role in holding member states accountable for violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and ensuring that individuals have access to justice. Tribunals, on the other hand, are often established to address specific legal issues or disputes and may not have the same focus on upholding human rights as the ECHR.

Accessibility

The ECHR is accessible to individuals who believe their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. Individuals can bring cases before the Court without the need for legal representation, and the Court provides assistance to applicants who are unable to afford legal representation. Tribunals, on the other hand, may have more formal procedures and requirements for bringing a case, which can make them less accessible to individuals without legal representation.

Enforcement Mechanisms

The ECHR has the authority to issue binding decisions on member states and can require states to take specific actions to remedy violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court has a range of enforcement mechanisms at its disposal, including the ability to award compensation to victims of human rights violations. Tribunals, on the other hand, may have more limited enforcement mechanisms and may rely on other institutions or authorities to enforce their decisions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the ECHR and tribunals are both important institutions that play a crucial role in upholding justice and protecting human rights. While they serve similar purposes, there are key differences in their attributes and functions that set them apart. Understanding these differences is essential for ensuring that individuals have access to justice and that human rights are upheld in society.