MSPs have been told bereaved families of the notorious Beslan massacre more than a decade ago fear President Putin will use the Tory’s repeal of the Human Rights Act to withdraw Russia from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Amnesty International have presented evidence to a Holyrood committee claiming the Russian leader is closely watching the Conservative Government’s actions to scrap the 1998 law in a bid to weaken protections in his country.
Amnesty said relatives of those killed in Beslan launched a legal case against Moscow at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg last year for failing to prevent the outrage despite detailed intelligence and for compounding the loss of life by using weapons such as flame-throwers which killed indiscriminately.
A total of 331 people including 179 children were killed when a school in the town of Beslan was seized by Chechen separatists in 2004.
Amnesty’s warning was contained in its submission to the European and External Relations Committee which is holding a special session tomorrow on the Conservative’s proposals to repeal the legislation.
It said: “Some of the bereaved families were interviewed and spoke eloquently about the importance of the Strasbourg Court to their struggle for justice. They raised fears that any potential UK withdrawal from the European Convention of Human Rights would be catastrophic for the rule of law in Russia as it would be taken as a green light for President Vladimir Putin to flout Russia’s human rights commitments.”
The submission went on: “One of the court’s applicants who lost two sons and her husband in the massacre said: ‘If the UK is to withdraw, it would be an excuse for our government to say ‘We don’t want it either!’ Putin would point at the UK straight away.....The UK must not think only of itself, because this will lead to other countries completely disregarding the rule of law…It is hard to overestimate the significance of the European Court of Human Rights for the Russian people. It is the only deterrence from this lawlessness. It is our only hope.’”
In its submission Amnesty also told how Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta was facing war crimes in The Hague relating to post-electoral violence which erupted after the 2007 elections leaving 1,200 dead and 600,000 displaced.
Amnesty said: “Kenyatta made a speech to the Kenyan Parliament strongly asserting Kenya’s sovereignty saying: ‘The push to defend sovereignty is not unique to Kenya or Africa. Very recently, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom committed to reasserting the sovereign primacy of his parliament over the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. He has even threatened to quit that court.’”
The Faculty of Advocates and the Law Society for Scotland also presented submissions to the committee attacking a repeal.
Both of the professional organisations defended the Human Rights Act.
The faculty said it believed that the incorporation of the European Convention of Human Rights into domestic law through the Human Rights Act and the devolution legislation was beneficial for the people of Scotland.
It added: “Today, the ECHR is of great importance in daily practice in the Scottish courts. Individuals may rely directly on their convention rights and enforce those rights in their own courts.” The Scottish Government has said it will try to stop the UK Government from repealing the Human Rights Act.
An MoJ spokesperson said: "This Government was elected with a mandate to reform and modernise the UK human rights framework. The UK has a proud tradition of respect for human rights which long pre-dates the Human Rights Act 1998. But the Human Rights Act opened the system to abuse, damaging the credibility of human rights. Our proposals for a British Bill of Rights will protect fundamental human rights, prevent their abuse and restore some common sense to the system. We will fully consult on our proposals before introducing legislation.
"Nothing in our proposals will stop us holding others to account for their human rights records."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here