AIV 40 engels

aiv.advies.nl

AIV 40 engels

and other experts would improve the quality of the evaluation. 20 As long as the currentprocedure remains in force, however, it should be ensured that the members of the PAinterview the candidates with appropriate discretion. It should not be forgotten that, intheir capacity as national parliamentarians, they help to produce legislation which, in theory,can be reviewed for compatibility with the ECHR by the Court that the candidates areseeking to join.Another example of the PA’s work to strengthen monitoring bodies and mechanisms concernsthe aforementioned protocol that once again thoroughly amends the control systemof the ECHR (Protocol No. 14, adopted by the Committee of Ministers in May 2004). Inearly 2004, after the Dutch chairmanship of the Council of Europe asked it to respond tothe draft protocol, the PA made a number of critical comments regarding such issues asthe addition of a new admissibility criterion for individual applications, the fact that theCommissioner for Human Rights is not able to bring cases before the Court and the agelimit for judges (see Opinion 251 (2004)). The PA’s comments on the draft protocol werefollowed by a large number of proposed amendments, but only one of these found its wayinto the final protocol, namely the one concerning the age limit (70) for judges.Furthermore, in 2004, the PA again gave its opinion on such issues as the ‘Ratification ofprotocols and withdrawal of reservations and derogations made in respect of the EuropeanConvention on Human Rights’ (see, for example, Recommendation 1671 (2004))and the implementation of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights by memberstates such as Turkey.Another aspect of strengthening the PA’s monitoring tasks relates to the support it givesto the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. 21 For instance, the PA hasspoken out in favour of expanding the Commissioner’s role in matters related to the Conventionand the Court. It advocates strengthening this role considerably, both with regardto the enforcement of judgements and with regard to the ability to bring cases before theCourt. In its recommendation, it therefore calls on the Committee of Ministers tostrengthen the Commissioner’s mandate in this area and provide him with sufficient fundingto carry out all his tasks properly. This appeal to the Committee of Ministers does notalter the fact that the PA also has a responsibility of its own to act as a catalyst in thisarea.The AIV also devoted attention to the role of the Commissioner in its earlier report, notingthat this post does not have a particularly high profile, that there is much need forimprovement in the field of cooperation and that with adequate support the Commissionercould make an important contribution to the Council of Europe’s overall activities. Withregard to the European Court of Human Rights, incidentally, the AIV saw – and continuesto see – the Commissioner’s role more in the area of the execution of judgements andreducing the total number of cases brought before the Court than in the development ofan independent right to bring cases. Finally, the AIV concluded in its earlier report that theCommissioner’s mandate should be thoroughly evaluated following his first term of office.20 See J.F. Bruinsma, ‘De Rechtersverkiezingen voor het EHRM van 2004’, (‘The 2004 election of judges forthe ECHR’) NJCM-Bulletin, vol. 29 (2004), No. 7.21 The Commissioner is elected by the PA for a term of office of six years (Resolution 99 (50) of the Committeeof Ministers of 7 May 1999). For the PA’s views on the Commissioner’s work, see for example Resolution1640 (2004), adopted on 26 January 2004.16

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines