MOSCOW, December 21 - RAPSI, Ingrid Burke. A UK commission charged by the government last year with exploring the option of introducing a constitutional instrument in the form of a Bill of Rights submitted a report to parliament this week detailing its findings.

The Commission was established in March 2011 with the primary aim of “[investigating] the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all [of the UK’s] obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights [(Convention)], ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and [extends] our liberties.”

The Council of Europe was created in 1949. The European Convention on Human Rights was adopted the following year. In 1951, the UK became the first of the Council of Europe’s original 12 member states to ratify the Convention. It took effect in 1953.

The UK accepted the right of individual petition in 1966; prior to 1998, member states had the option of deciding whether or not to allow individual citizens to launch claims in the court challenging alleged violations of the Convention on the part of the state. Nonetheless, individuals within the UK lacked truly viable domestic options for challenging perceived rights infringements in domestic courts. This changed with the passage of the UK’s Human Rights Act in 1998.

The Human Rights Act (Act) brought UK law closer in line with its international obligations by requiring all legislation to be interpreted as compatibly as possible with the Convention, and by prohibiting public authorities from acting incompatibly with the rights protected thereby. Furthermore, individuals were afforded the opportunity to launch proceedings against UK authorities for any rights violations suffered as a result of their failure to comply.

Furthermore, higher courts are empowered under the Act to declare primary UK legislation incompatible with the Convention when appropriate. This declaration serves as a call of action of sorts by, “[triggering] a power that allows a Minister to amend the law by order to bring it into line with the Convention if the Government chooses to do so.”

Another outcome of the Human Rights Act was that – in establishing a procedure for individual complaints before UK courts – it required individuals within the UK to seek domestic remedies first before reaching out to the ECHR.

Still, debates have continued to rage over whether the Act is sufficient in and of itself for protecting human rights in the UK, or whether something stronger is needed. 
While serving as the opposition leader in 2006, now-Prime Minister David Cameron advocated the replacement of the Human Rights Act with “a modern British Bill of Rights to define the core values which give us our identity as a free nation.”

In May 2010, the government announced: “we will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties.” 
From this initiative the Commission was born several months later.

The report issued this Tuesday entitled “A UK Bill of Rights? - The Choice Before Us” dealt with the fundamental question of whether or not the UK should create its own Bill of Rights.

According to its Terms of Reference, the Commission was charged with examining the practical implementation of the UK’s obligations under the Convention with a view to their comprehensive aims, and would work in consultation with the relevant public branches.

Seven of the Commission’s nine members favor the establishment of a Bill of Rights, while two opposed the initiative.

The proponents believed that such a document would incorporate and build upon the UK’s obligations under the Convention, and would not provide any less protection than is currently afforded between the Human Rights Act and the devolution settlements. The most compelling arguments for the proponents in favor of a Bill of Rights are concerns that at present the public lacks ownership of the Act and the Convention, and furthermore that a Bill of Rights would militate against potential abuses of power.

The opponents expressed the view that the aims of such a Bill of Rights have already been met by the Human Rights Act. Albeit open to the idea of such a bill, they expressed concern that the proponents’ public ownership argument would be, according to an official press release, “used to promote other aims, including the diminution of rights available to all people in our community, and a decoupling of the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights.”

The commissioners agreed that any further talks of the development of a Bill of Rights should remain sensitive to devolution issues and should bear in mind the possibility of Scottish independence.