It is evident that life is the beginning of human biological existence. From birth, from the first moment of existence, we have the freedom to live. With the advent of the modern concept of human rights, this freedom is guaranteed to every individual. Our state has also taken on such obligations. Article 27 of the Constitution of Ukraine states: “Every person has an inalienable right to life. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of life. It is the duty of the state to protect the life of individuals…”Ukraine has ratified several United Nations treaties, which include the right to life as one of their protected subjects, as well as the European Convention, the second article of which obliges states to respect this right. But what does this duty of the state mean—to respect the right to life? At what moment does human life begin? And perhaps this doesn’t imply immortality guarantees? In what way can the state guarantee this right, other than not depriving life? Where does this duty of the state begin and end?Interpreting the basic meaning of Article 2, which guarantees the right to life, the European Court of Human Rights emphasizes the fundamental nature of this right and establishes the supremacy of Article 2. Without the right to life, as stated in the decision “Pretty v. The United Kingdom,” “…the exercise of any of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention would be illusory.”The right to life cannot be abolished even during emergencies and extraordinary circumstances: “this [right to life. – Ed.] is one of the fundamental provisions of the Convention, which in peacetime does not allow derogation, possible under Article 15…”However, the right to life is not absolute. The European Convention, in particular, sets out an exhaustive list of circumstances under which this right may be lawfully restricted. Article 2 of the Convention allows for instances of deprivation of life, but only in cases of “absolutely necessary” use of force. The exhaustive list of circumstances is set out in paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the European Convention:a) to defend any person from unlawful violence;b) to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.It is worth noting that Article 2 of the Convention allows for the implementation of the death penalty if it is imposed by a court for a crime for which the law provides such punishment. Thus, as noted by the scholar Michele de Salvio, this provision “bears the trace of the time when it was conceived and written.” Subsequently, Protocol No. 6 to the Convention was adopted, which prohibited the death penalty in peacetime, and later, by Protocol No. 13, the death penalty was abolished. Currently, no circumstances can justify such a punishment, and its application is a direct violation of the right to life under the European Convention.Therefore, the right to life entails two main obligations on the part of the state and its official representatives. The first, so-called “negative” obligation. The state or its official representatives must refrain from any actions that could result in the deprivation of life, except for established restrictions. The second is the “positive” duties – the state must protect the lives of individuals under its jurisdiction.You can learn more about the right to life at this link.Share stories about human rights and get to know the stories others are sending in our community! This way, we can promote human rights and create a society that respects human dignity and values freedom and equality.Send your stories here … We will post them on our portal …Read, listen, watch other stories here ..

Privacy is defined as the boundaries of personal physical and spiritual space established by individuals themselves. Privacy is a separate world, the personal space of each person. How open this world will be to others is a personal matter for each individual. Naturally, if, for example, I don’t want someone to look at my photos or read my letters, writings, I simply won’t show them to others. No one will know about their existence if someone gains access to them without my consent.

Today, the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution and many international human rights documents. The European Convention on Human Rights says: “Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

Considering the nature of the right to privacy, it is very multifaceted. Four spheres of the right to privacy can be conditionally distinguished.

(1) Privacy is considered as respect for personal life in its physical and moral manifestations. This is respect for individuality in terms of personal characteristics or belonging to a certain social or ethnic group. This concerns bodily privacy. For example, in a medical institution, you should be informed about the treatment plan and obtain permission for any procedures involving your body. This also includes the impact of the environment on health.

(2) Informational privacy concerns the protection of personal data, personal information from unwanted collection, dissemination, and use. Personal data includes various information about a person: from general information about passport data, education, place of residence, to such sensitive data as worldview or religious beliefs, health status, sexual life, and much more. Interestingly, the issue of collecting and disseminating information about a person is often considered together with the freedom of expression. The principles of freedom of expression allow restricting the right to private and family life, especially when it concerns public figures, politicians, and government officials.

(3) Communication privacy states that no one can have access to your postal correspondence, the content of SMS messages, messaging conversations, email without your consent.

(4) The territory of your residence, house, land plot is part of your private life. This is territorial privacy.

The purpose of enshrining the right to respect for private and family life as a legal norm is to protect individuals from arbitrary interference by state authorities in their personal and family life. However, this does not only mean passive non-interference. The state has so-called “positive obligations” – the necessity of specific actions by the state to guarantee the right to privacy.

Share stories about human rights and get acquainted with the stories others send in our community! This way, we can promote human rights and create a society that respects human dignity and values freedom and equality.

Send your stories here … We will post them on our portal …

Read, listen, watch stories of others here …

The freedom to move freely, live in any corner of one’s own country, travel abroad, and choose a place of residence at one’s discretion is an important element of everyone’s freedom.

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. 2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country,” declares the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone who is lawfully present on the territory of Ukraine is guaranteed the freedom of movement, the free choice of residence, the right to leave the territory of Ukraine freely, except for the restrictions established by law (…),” as stated in the Constitution of Ukraine.

This fundamental freedom is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

One of the most vulnerable groups in the context of freedom of movement is foreigners residing in another country. Among them are refugees, for whom returning to their country may pose a significant risk of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylum seekers, who have left their country hoping for protection in another state, and immigrants, who have moved to another country seeking to stay there and build their future, are also at risk. Their fate largely depends on the government of the country they are in, and therefore, their freedom of movement and choice of residence are potentially under threat.

There was a case when the government of Ukraine initially decided to extradite a citizen of Kazakhstan but then halted it after intervention by the European Court of Human Rights. The court applied interim measures at the request of this Kazakh citizen. Such a decision was based on the high probability that this person would face torture and denial of justice in Kazakhstan. This is the case of “Dzhakisbergenov v. Ukraine.” Anwar Dzhakisbergenov himself in Kazakhstan was accused of serious financial wrongdoing, and the decision of the European Court does not obviate the need to consider such a case in a fair and independent court.

There are cases where freedom of movement is excessively restricted by state authorities in situations where a person has debts on loans or debts recognized by the court.

In the case of “Gotshev v. Bulgaria,” the European Court recognized a violation of freedom of movement by prohibiting a person who was indebted to private companies from leaving the country. The European Court justified its decision by the fact that the applicant was subject to an automatic ban on leaving the country without the opportunity to explain the reasons for his debt and for an indefinite period. 

In 2011, the Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled that the prohibition on debtors traveling abroad temporarily did not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine. It all started when the Supreme Court overturned the decisions of district and appellate courts in a lawsuit filed by one of the commercial banks that imposed such unlawful restrictions on three individuals who were debtors on a loan.

Cases of restricting freedom of movement for those suspected of committing crimes and subjected to preventive measures prohibiting them from leaving their place of residence are common. For example, in the case of “Ivanov v. Ukraine,” the applicant complained about prolonged restrictions on his freedom of movement as a result of a decision on non-departure. In 1995, he had a quarrel with neighbors, which escalated into a fight. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for causing moderate harm, and in 1996, he was charged with malicious hooliganism. The investigation lasted until 2006, and for over ten years, the applicant could not leave his place of residence.

The European Court agreed that the state authorities acted within the law and aimed to ensure criminal prosecution. However, considering that the charges against the applicant were dropped in 2000 due to the statute of limitations and that the imposed restriction was prolonged, the Court recognized that such interference with freedom of movement was disproportionate to its aim. Thus, freedom of movement, as protected by Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, was violated.

Currently, in Ukraine, there are restrictions on the departure abroad for certain individuals who may be mobilized for military service, especially men. This is an example of when restricting freedom of movement is necessary in wartime conditions.

The issue of observing freedom of movement is relevant in many situations. For example, when the state tries to track information about leaving and entering the country or moving within the country, when there are obstacles to obtaining education abroad, reuniting with family, and so on.

What examples do you know related to freedom of movement?

Share stories about human rights and get acquainted with stories sent by others in our community! This way, we can promote human rights and create a society where human dignity and the values of freedom and equality are respected.

Send your stories here … We will publish them on our portal ….

Read, listen, watch stories of others here ….

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers…” (Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights). Freedom of expression is also referred to as the “oxygen of democracy,” and the European Court of Human Rights typically reminds us in its decisions that freedom of expression is one of the cornerstones of democratic society. What does freedom of expression mean for each and every one of us? What responsibilities does the state have in relation to this freedom? Is it subject to limitations, and if so, for what purposes? “Everyone has the right…” This means that this freedom belongs to EVERY individual without exception. This is a characteristic feature of all human rights – their content and scope are not dependent on social status, race, ideology, level of education, or any other differences. “… to receive and impart information and ideas…” Freedom of expression is often called “journalistic freedom.” Indeed, the work of journalists is directly related to this freedom, and most often it is journalists who require protection of freedom of speech. But opinions can be expressed not only through words. We can convey information in various ways – through speech, behavior, appearance, through works of art, and so on. The state

cannot interfere with this. Or conversely – the state must do something to protect against such interference from others. No one can prohibit us from seeking information from open sources. We should also have the opportunity to receive information held by government bodies. Therefore, they are obliged to publish important information that represents a public interest and provide it upon citizens’ request. “… information and ideas…” There was a case when at one of the Ukrainian universities the administration closed an exhibition of artists after a group of students and teachers, who saw offensive scenes in the paintings exhibited, appealed to them. However, the organizers of the exhibition raised an important social discussion through artistic expression, and the exhibition itself was a response to the actions of young people who forcibly disrupted one of the events of other students the day before. The students who disrupted the event appealed to law enforcement agencies, but the investigation was not conducted properly.

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly emphasized that freedom of expression covers not only information and ideas that “are favorably perceived or considered non-offensive or neutral, but also those that offend, shock, or cause concern.” Freedom of expression, like most human rights, may be subject to limitations. But the application by the state of such actions that entail limitations must meet the criteria of necessity However, the application by the state of such actions that involve limitations can only be done in a manner prescribed by law. For example, journalistic materials or works of art cannot be subjected to censorship.

The purpose for which freedom of expression is restricted is important. Such purposes may include national security, territorial integrity, public safety, prevention of disorder and crime, protection of health or morals, protection of reputation or rights of others, prevention of disclosure of confidential information, and maintenance of the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Restrictions are often applied when freedom of expression enters into a sort of conflict with the right to privacy of another person. These are always complex situations and decisions. 

There are many cases where journalists have been fined heavily, and sometimes even punished with imprisonment for expressing their views. Such decisions are quite dangerous if they lack sufficient justification. They can become a cause for concern about freely expressing views among other journalists and bloggers. There is another conditional term related to freedom of expression: the “sacred cow.” Serious grounds are needed for restrictions to be applied. 

In Norwegian society, there was a prolonged discussion about a court decision that banned Breivik, who carried out a terrorist attack at a youth camp resulting in the death of many people, from publicly expressing his views through the media. Many believe that it is better to make such things public rather than to conceal them. In their opinion, people are capable of recognizing the absurdity and disgracefulness of such ideologies themselves. And transparency, rather than concealment, prevents propaganda.

What do you think?

And what examples do you know related to freedom of expression?

Share stories about human rights and get to know stories sent by others in our community! This way, we can promote human rights and create a society where human dignity and the values of freedom and equality are respected.

Send your stories here… We will post them on our portal… 

Read, listen to, watch stories of others here…

What are human rights? What principles and concepts shape the modern concept of human rights? Let’s try to understand why human rights are the accepted measure of limiting democratic state power.Let’s start with the fact that we all have certain needs and values. Human rights originate precisely from such moral categories and common needs.If we think about what is most valuable to each person, we will not get the same list, as each person is unique, with their own way of life, views, and beliefs, attitudes towards the surrounding world depending on the traditions and concepts in which they were raised. However, usually, among this list of values, we encounter a significant number of points identical for each person.First of all – this is life itself, because the fact of biological existence – life – is primary to any life situation. This fact is self-evident and usually does not cause surprise. Equally undeniable is the need for individuality, even if not always conscious, to have certain individual views and beliefs, and if a person is deprived of the opportunity to freely choose and profess them, we will have a situation of incomplete life, a sense of inability to be a full member of society.However, not all values and needs are human rights. One reason for this arises from the principle that if a person has a right, then the state has an obligation to guarantee this right. Guaranteeing means that it simply will not hinder or will take action if they are necessary for the realization of this right.Human rights, unlike some other values ​​and needs, are universal and are not acquired but belong to every person from birth. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights…” says the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Human rights are universal. They belong to every person anywhere and in any circumstances, regardless of social status and any differences.There is an opinion that since many societies have their own cultures, traditions, and structures, human rights cannot be universal for all. Kofi Annan, who was Secretary-General of the UN from 1997 to 2006, said about this: “However, who can argue that we all hate violence? Have you ever heard of a free person demanding freedom? Have you ever heard of a slave advocating slavery? Have you ever heard of a torture victim approving torture? (…) Throughout history and in all cultures, tolerance and mercy have been ideals of government and human behavior. Today, we call these values human rights.”Human rights are inalienable. Most of them can be restricted under certain circumstances, but they cannot be deprived. Even a person cannot waive them. It is impossible to make a contract and give them up. The state cannot take them away, even by enacting a law. They just exist… No circumstances or conditions to have human rights. It is enough just to be born a human…Human rights are individual. They cannot be collective simply because they belong to each individual – an individual. Even when the problem concerns a whole group of people, each person has their own particular situation. Each of us, being in the same situation, feels differently. This depends on personal qualities and differences. A person with a disability who can only move with the help of a wheelchair may feel humiliated, discriminated against, unable to enter a courtroom – while another person feels nothing similar.Analyzing human rights issues related to a group of people, we still mean the rights of each individual representing this group. For example, talking about the rights of national minorities, we mean the rights of specific representatives of certain national minorities. Talking about the rights of vulnerable groups – we also talk about the rights of each individual.All this is particularly important in terms of protecting human rights. Systemic problems usually concern not only one person but many others as well. But sometimes, making claims and fighting for one’s rights from the perspective of just one person can improve the situation for the better for the entire group of people affected by this problem.

Dignity

Finally, human rights are not something that are asked for or traded. It is something that is demanded as due by nature.

As Polish scientist and human rights defender Viktor Osiatynski said: “The ability to demand is an important component of human dignity. The protection of dignity, in turn, is one of the main functions of human rights.”

“Taking into account that the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace…” – these are the opening words of the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thus, the authors of the Declaration lay the foundation for the concept of human rights, based on the notion of human dignity, which is inherent to every individual from birth.

Human dignity is a kind of starting point from which the concept of human rights is built. It cannot be precisely defined, but it can be felt. Every person possesses it. It is a kind of “litmus paper” that can indicate possible violations of human rights. When we feel humiliation, pain – that’s when human dignity suffers.

For a better understanding of this important concept in the human rights framework, Marek Nowicki, a well-known Polish human rights activist, distinguishes between human dignity and personal dignity. Personal dignity, he says, is close to the concept of honor. If we do a good deed, our personal dignity increases. If we commit an immoral act, personal dignity suffers. Human dignity, on the other hand, does not depend on our actions. “It belongs to both a newborn who has yet to do anything good or bad in life and the greatest criminal,” said Marek Nowicki in his lecture. The punishment for a criminal sitting in prison lies in the restriction of freedom and many other rights and freedoms. But that does not mean that a person can be subjected to torture or humiliation.

Freedom

Recognition of human dignity is the foundation, a necessary condition for freedom. Freedom is another fundamental concept in the human rights framework. However, how do we understand the concept of “freedom”? For example, during the nationwide survey conducted in 2017 (“What Ukrainians Know and Think about Human Rights: Nationwide Survey” conducted periodically), freedom was ranked first in the assessment of various values by the Ukrainian population as the most important for human rights. 80% of respondents chose it among the main values. However, one-third (30.3%) of the same survey participants who rank “freedom” as the first value in the value system are willing to give up some of their rights and civil liberties in exchange for their own well-being. Another third (35.4%) chooses the option that they are willing to endure certain material difficulties for personal freedom and guarantees of respect for all civil rights. About the same number of respondents (34.3%) found it difficult to choose one of the options.

It seems that people put different meanings into the concept of freedom. For some, freedom is inseparable from prosperity because from this point of view, to feel like a free person, one needs to have a certain level of material well-being. For someone, freedom is the opportunity for free choice, independent decision-making. Someone feels like a free person when they do not feel dependent on material goods.

“He who is willing to give up his freedom in order to gain temporary security deserves neither freedom nor security,” said American scientist, physicist, statesman, diplomat, and publicist Benjamin Franklin. In the concept of human rights, freedom, interpreting the statement of the Polish scientist Viktor Osiatynski, protects the “…autonomous sphere that no force can interfere with…”

Different philosophical approaches to understanding the concept of “freedom” in the context of the role of the state in ensuring it have historically formed. Polish human rights activist Marek Nowicki outlines these two approaches as “freedom from the state” and “freedom through the state.”

In the approach of “freedom from the state,” the role of the state is reduced to that of a protector. People agree to share their income with the state, including paying taxes, so that the state takes care of their protection and security. This is where the role of the state is limited. In all other matters, the state should not interfere and hinder individuals in their autonomy and personal aspirations.

The “freedom through the state” approach expands the role of the state and endows it with the functions of a kind of guardian who has a fairly wide range of positive duties to ensure happiness and a better future for individuals. The main risk of this approach is that the state sometimes tends to take care to the extent that it invents what exactly we desire.

Currently, these two approaches are expressed in the concept of human rights in the existence of both “negative” (guaranteeing non-interference) and “positive” (guaranteeing the creation of conditions, providing specific goods) state obligations.

Freedom, as a value, as a principle in the human rights concept, urges civic responsibility. After all, if I want not to be hindered, then I take responsibility for my fate and the consequences of my actions for others.

“Freedom means responsibility. That’s why most people are afraid of it,” said the famous English playwright George Bernard Shaw.

Equality

Equality, along with the concepts of dignity and freedom, also lies at the foundation of the human rights concept. At the same time, the philosophical understanding of equality varies greatly for different people.

Some perceive equality as equality of goods – everyone should have the same amount of values and resources because all are equal. For some, inequality is inevitable, as a kind of law of nature.

French lexicographer and poet, known as the editor of the Universal Dictionary of the French Language Pierre Boiste, sees in equality a threat to freedom: “Where everyone is equal, no one is free.”

Many examples can be cited of different views on worldviews’ concepts of equality.

The concept of human rights, however, is a system that sets minimum standards. Figuratively speaking, it is a “floor level” – one cannot go below it. In this sense, equality is associated with equality in rights and equality before the law. And the minimum standard is the prohibition of discrimination.

“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

Limitation of Human Rights. Mechanisms for Protecting Human Rights

“Freedom consists of the ability to do anything that does not harm others. Thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each individual has only those limits that ensure other members of society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law,” as stated in the documents of the French Revolution (Constitution of France, September 3, 1791, Article 4).

Human rights can be limited. The state establishes limitations when there is a conflict between the realization of one person’s rights and the rights and freedoms of other individuals, when it is necessary to protect values ​​that represent an important public interest.

However, in order to avoid situations where the state abuses such powers, limitations must be lawful.

All rights and freedoms may be subject to limitations, except for freedom of thought, freedom from cruel and degrading treatment and punishment, and freedom from slavery. These rights are usually referred to as “absolute.”

Finally, it is worth noting that human rights would be mere declarations on paper if mechanisms for protecting human rights did not exist. Each state has its own national and international human rights protection systems.

Overall, all the principles and concepts of the human rights concept work to ensure the functioning of three elements, which make this concept complete, as Victor Osiatynski aptly expressed: “firstly, any authority has limiting frameworks; secondly, every person has their autonomous sphere, which no force can interfere with; thirdly, every person, in defending their rights, can make claims to the state, demand the observance of their rights.”

More about the fundamentals of the concept, history, and philosophy of human rights can be found at this link

Share stories about human rights and get acquainted with the stories that others send in our community! This way, we can advance human rights and create a society where human dignity and the values ​​of freedom and equality are respected.

Send your stories here … We will post them on our portal ….

Read, listen to, and watch the stories of others here ….