case study about human rights

Accessibility tools

• Skip to main content
• Accessibility

You are here:

• Case studies

Human rights case studies

Main site sub navigation

In this section:

• The top level navigation links
• Legislation
• Leading Authorities
• Judicial review decisions
• Case notes - discrimination
• Case notes - human rights
• Reports on unresolved human rights complaints
• Tribunal exemptions
• Intervention guidelines
• Interventions
• Call for case studies
• Submissions
• Health equity
• Age case studies
• Breastfeeding case studies
• Family responsibilities case studies
• Gender identity case studies
• Impairment case studies
• Parental status case studies
• Political belief or activity case studies
• Pregnancy case studies
• Race case studies
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander case studies
• Relationship status case studies
• Religious belief or religious activity case studies
• Sex discrimination case studies
• Sex work activity case studies
• Sexuality case studies
• Trade union activity case studies
• Association case studies
• Sexual harassment case studies
• Unlawful requests for information case studies
• Victimisation case studies
• Vilification case studies
• Guides and toolkits
• Fact sheets
• Human Rights Month 2019 Speaker Series: Right to education
• Human Rights Month 2019 Speaker Series: Understanding the impact of Queensland's Human Rights Act
• Working it Through
• A Human Rights Act for Queensland
• 2023 theme: Universal means everyone
• Events and training
• Human Rights Week in your workplace
• Posters and supporter resources
• Why the hummingbird?
• Queensland human rights timeline

The case studies on this page include conciliated outcomes of human rights complaints and piggy-back complaints.

Human rights complaints

A human rights complaint is a complaint that a public entity has acted or made a decision that is incompatible with a person’s human rights, or has failed to properly consider human rights when making a decision. The complaint needs to indicate that one or more of the human rights in the Human Rights Act 2019 has been limited, and that the limitation is unreasonable and unjustified.

If a human rights complaint is accepted, the Commission’s role is to help the parties to resolve the complaint, usually through conciliation.

Piggy-back complaints

A complaint about an act or decision of a public entity that is dealt with under the Anti-Discrimination Act might also indicate that the act or decision is incompatible with human rights, or that the public entity has not properly considered human rights in making the decision. The human rights claim can be added to the discrimination complaint. This is called a piggy-back complaint.

Back to top

Apology for offensive comments based on gender identity

Improving processes to apply for disability parking

Treatment of family with disabilities prompts training review

More responsive health services for man with Klinefelter syndrome

Resolution to complaint promoted family and kinship rights

Access to health services for a man with disability seeking vaccination booster

Perceptions of cultural safety in health service provision improved

Alternative to mask-wearing provided for pregnant woman

Quarantine exemption for woman picking up assistance dog

Police express regret about asking traditional custodians to move on while exercising their cultural rights

Unaccompanied children allowed to quarantine at home

Employer takes steps to prevent breaches of privacy and reputation in future

Suitable social housing secured for older woman with mobility issues

School and parents work together to support a child with a disability

Woman's mental health deteriorates in hotel quarantine

Transport service reviews disability policies and commits to training

Family experiences challenges in hotel quarantine

Approved absence from social housing allowed mother to pursue training opportunity

Appropriate accommodation found for family's quarantine stay

Health service acknowledges embarrassment experienced by patient with a disability

Access to family during COVID

Crisis housing conflict resolved

Quarantine exemption fast-tracked for child with ASD

Quarantine conditions exacerbate anxiety

Illegal camping fines withdrawn

Railway station upgrade for accessibility

Disability awareness training for council

Family needed accessible social housing

Get the Magazine

International Human Rights Violations: A Closer Look at Recent Court Cases

In recent years, there have been several high-profile court cases that have shed light on the widespread issue of human rights violations around the world. From war crimes to torture, these cases have brought attention to the need for justice and accountability for those who commit such egregious acts.

One such case is the trial of former Bosnian Serb military leader Ratko Mladic, who was convicted of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 2017. Mladic was responsible for orchestrating the massacre of over 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995, in what has been described as the worst atrocity in Europe since World War II. His conviction served as a stark reminder of the horrors of the Bosnian War and the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions.

Another recent case that has drawn international attention is the trial of former Chadian dictator Hissène Habré, who was convicted of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture by a special court in Senegal in 2016. Habré ruled Chad from 1982 to 1990, during which time thousands of people were killed, tortured, and persecuted. His trial marked the first time that a former head of state was convicted of human rights abuses by the courts of another country, setting a precedent for holding dictators accountable for their actions.

In recent years, several court cases have brought attention to the issue of international human rights violations, shedding light on compelling and concerning situations across different regions. These cases have highlighted the urgent need for accountability and justice to address human rights abuses. Below are some of the notable cases with their respective dates and sources:

Weir v. U.S. (Filed on June 12, 2019) 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is known for its efforts in defending civil liberties and protecting individuals against government overreach. In a recent development, the ACLU filed a federal lawsuit against the United States and the head of the U.S. Coast Guard on behalf of four Jamaican fishermen who were subjected to a harrowing ordeal at sea.

The fishermen were forcibly removed from their fishing boat and detained for over a month in inhumane conditions by the U.S. Coast Guard. The incident took place in international waters, raising serious concerns about the treatment of foreign nationals by U.S. authorities.

The ACLU's lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks to hold the government accountable for violating the fishermen's rights. Senior Judge Thomas Hogan's decision to deny most of the Coast Guard's motion to dismiss is a significant step forward in the case, allowing it to proceed to trial.

The lawsuit highlights the importance of upholding due process and respecting the rights of all individuals, regardless of their nationality. The ACLU's legal action underscores the organization's commitment to defending civil liberties and ensuring that no one is subjected to arbitrary detention or inhumane treatment.

Barrani v. Salt Lake City (Filed on November 7, 2023)

The Barrani v. Salt Lake City case was filed on November 7, 2023, and it involves the homelessness crisis in Salt Lake City, Utah. In this case, hundreds if not thousands of Salt Lake City residents have nowhere safe to stay and are forced to live and sleep in public. The case raises questions as to whether this citywide homelessness crisis constitutes a nuisance under Utah state law. Additionally, it presents the question of whether Salt Lake City can be ordered to clear encampments, forcibly relocate unhoused individuals, and enforce vague and overbroad laws that may infringe on the constitutional rights of the unhoused population.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of residents and businesses, alleging that the city created a climate that harms the public and private by allowing some of the most vulnerable Utahns, people experiencing homelessness, to live and sleep in local streets, sidewalks, and parks. The plaintiffs seek extensive recourse from the court, asking it to enter declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctions compelling the city to forcibly remove people from their chosen communities without ensuring their access to safe and dignified housing.

The plaintiffs' NIMBY (not in my backyard) suit challenges whether the city's actions have interfered with the rights of the unhoused under Utah state law. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, the national ACLU’s Trone Center for Justice & Equality, the ACLU of Utah, and the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association are involved in the case, representing amici curiae in the trial court who oppose the plaintiffs’ nuisance claims and their request for relief. The case is ongoing, and it raises significant concerns about the constitutional rights and civil liberties of people experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City.

International Human Rights Violations in Russia-Controlled Areas of Ukraine  

The documented cases of international human rights violations in Russia-controlled areas of Ukraine reveal the shocking and grave nature of the abuses committed by Russian military forces against civilians. The violations highlighted by Human Rights Watch included instances of rape, summary executions, and other unlawful violence and threats against civilian populations in the occupied territories.

This alarming report sheds light on the widespread and systematic nature of the violations, painting a harrowing picture of the impact on the affected communities. The violations are indicative of severe breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights standards, resulting in immense suffering and trauma for the civilian population living in these conflict-affected areas.

The cases of rape, summary executions, and unlawful violence represent egregious violations of fundamental human rights and the laws of war. These actions demonstrate a blatant disregard for the protection of civilians and the principles of international humanitarian law that are intended to safeguard the lives and dignity of non-combatant populations during armed conflict.

The documented abuses underscore the urgent need for accountability, justice, and international intervention to address the violations and protect the rights of civilians in the conflict-affected areas. The report serves as a critical call to action for the international community and relevant human rights organizations to prioritize efforts to investigate, document, and respond to these widespread abuses.

The findings presented by Human Rights Watch demand a robust and concerted response from the international community to hold the perpetrators accountable, ensure the protection of civilians, and work towards establishing a framework for lasting peace and respect for human rights in the affected regions.

The severity of the documented violations underscores the imperative of addressing the human rights crisis in Russia-controlled areas of Ukraine and the vital importance of upholding the rights and protections of civilian populations, even in the midst of conflict and geopolitical tensions.

Saudi Arabia's Mass Execution of 81 Men (Occurred on March 12, 2022) 

Saudi Arabia's Mass Execution of 81 Men, which occurred on March 12, 2022, marked the country's largest mass execution in years. The executions were carried out by Saudi authorities despite recent promises to curtail the use of the death penalty. This tragic event drew widespread international attention and condemnation.

The mass execution included 81 individuals, both Saudi and non-Saudi citizens, who were convicted of various offenses, including "terrorism"-related crimes, murder, armed robbery, arms smuggling, disrupting the social fabric and national cohesion, and participating in and inciting sit-ins and protests. Notably, 41 of those executed belonged to Saudi Arabia's Shi'a minority, reflecting the systemic discrimination and violence faced by this community.

Human Rights Watch highlighted rampant and systemic abuses in Saudi Arabia's criminal justice system, casting serious doubt on the fairness of the trials and sentencing of the executed individuals. The executions also prompted concern over Saudi Arabia's lack of transparency in death penalty cases, as the number of trials resulting in prisoners being placed on death row is reported to be significantly higher than what is publicly disclosed.

Furthermore, the executions took place when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was overhauling the country's justice system and limiting the use of the death penalty. Despite global shifts away from the death penalty, Saudi Arabia remains one of the 38 countries that still use it, raising significant human rights concerns on the international stage.

The mass execution sparked condemnation from international bodies, with calls for a complete de facto moratorium on the death penalty in Saudi Arabia. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, expressed strong disapproval, stating that the executions did not conform to international human rights and humanitarian law and may amount to a war crime.

These executions underscore the urgent need for reforms in Saudi Arabia's justice system and the abolition of the death penalty, raising serious human rights concerns and calling for international attention and action in addressing this critical issue.

These cases demonstrate the complex and urgent nature of international human rights violations and underscore the need for continued attention, legal scrutiny, and efforts toward protecting the rights of individuals worldwide.

It is crucial that we continue to shine a light on these violations and hold those responsible accountable for their actions. The pursuit of justice for victims of human rights abuses is not only a moral imperative but also a legal obligation under international law. By supporting the work of international tribunals and courts, we can help ensure that perpetrators are brought to justice and that the rights and dignity of all individuals are protected.

As we reflect on these recent court cases, let us recommit ourselves to the cause of human rights and work towards a world where justice and accountability prevail. Only through our collective efforts can we hope to prevent future atrocities and create a more just and peaceful world for all.

Recent Posts

Emerging Challenges in Cybersecurity Law

Resolving International Disputes: The Role of Diplomacy and International Law

Intellectual Property Law in a Digital Age

6 Websites Where You Can Find Human Rights Case Studies

Human rights often feel like abstract concepts. To get a fuller understanding of how they are defended or violated in the real world, case studies are very useful. Through research and specific processes, case studies provide an in-depth look at individuals, groups, or situations over a certain period. Here are five websites where you can find human rights case studies:

Business for Social Responsibility (BSR)

BSR is a global nonprofit organization with a network of 250 member companies and other partners. Their mission is to develop sustainable business solutions and strategies through consultation, research, and collaboration. They work with international companies, government agencies, and NGOs.

On their website, they have many case studies on a variety of topics, including human rights. Many of the other topics overlap with human rights issues, such as climate change, healthcare, ethics and governance, and women’s empowerment. Human rights case studies include a collaboration between Kering (Kering Eyewear, Gucci, etc) and BSR on the status of women working in the Italian luxury supply chain.

UNESDOC Digital Library (UNESCO)

The UNESDOC Digital Library is an important element for the realization of UNESCO’s mission. The library gives access to documents, publications, and other materials either produced by UNESCO or relevant to UNESCO. That includes materials in education, natural sciences, social sciences, communication, and more. There are more than 350,000 documents dating back to 1945. In addition to the online library, there is a physical library and archives room.

By searching “human rights case studies” in the UNESDOC Digital Library, a variety of results come up. Some of these include global case studies on the impact of technology on human rights (published in 1993) and a document with case studies on human rights and encryption (published in 2016). There’s also a casebook on human dignity and human rights from 2011 that contains 30 case studies.

Security Human Rights Hub

The goal of this Knowledge Hub is to provide resources and tools for companies working in challenging environments. These companies deal with complex challenges. Many of them affect the human rights of local communities and threaten the safety and security of operations and staff. There have been many policy frameworks, documents, and tools created to help companies deal with these issues, but they are rarely shared widely. The Hub’s purpose is to bring these tools together.

The case studies section offers examples of companies around the world enacting good practices in dealing with security and human rights challenges. Case studies come from places like Columbia, Cameroon, the DRC, and Iraq.

Equality and Human Rights Commission

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a non-departmental public body in Great Britain. It was first established by the Equality Act in 2006. Its goal is to “make Britain fairer” by serving as an expert organization and point of contact for public bodies, businesses, and policymakers.

Their selection of case studies is organized into topics like “Youth Cases,” “Balancing Human Rights,” and “How Human Rights Benefit Children and Young People’s Lives.” Many of the cases are presented within the context of human rights like the right to fair trial and protection from harm.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre is a group of 13 trustees and 58 staff committed to advancing human rights in business. They track the human rights policy and performance of more than 9,000 companies in over 180 countries. The Centre focuses on positively impacting the lives of vulnerable people, collaborating with partners, and remaining objective.

In their case studies portal, the Centre has compiled cases that involve community-driven actions in response to business activities. You can search by business sector (agricultural, energy, sugar, etc) and human rights issues  (child labor, access to water, education, etc). You can also search by country/region or tools (how to: monitor impacts, access impacts, etc).

BBC World Service Trust Project

The BBC World Service Trust Project is a global education project. Using events, debates, and multi-lingual radio programs, the project seeks to educate individuals about their rights. For many years, they’ve used media solutions to spread awareness about poverty and human rights in areas like Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. Their website is called “I have a right to…”

On this website, you can find case studies from around the world on topics like freedom and equality, justice before the law, and freedom of expression . Each of the studies correlates to an article from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . For example, the case study on privacy and the internet in the UK refers to Article 12, which is the right to privacy in the home, family, and correspondence.

Also consider reading our article about Resources to Research Human Rights Cases .

You may also like

Academia in Times of Genocide: Why are Students Across the World Protesting?

Pinkwashing 101: Definition, History, Examples

15 Inspiring Quotes for Black History Month

10 Inspiring Ways Women Are Fighting for Equality

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Clean Water

15 Trusted Charities Supporting Trans People

15 Political Issues We Must Address

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for LGBTQ+ Rights

16 Inspiring Civil Rights Leaders You Should Know

15 Trusted Charities Fighting for Housing Rights

15 Examples of Gender Inequality in Everyday Life

11 Approaches to Alleviate World Hunger 

About the author, emmaline soken-huberty.

Emmaline Soken-Huberty is a freelance writer based in Portland, Oregon. She started to become interested in human rights while attending college, eventually getting a concentration in human rights and humanitarianism. LGBTQ+ rights, women’s rights, and climate change are of special concern to her. In her spare time, she can be found reading or enjoying Oregon’s natural beauty with her husband and dog.

• Infographics
• Inspired Source
• Visions of Human Rights
• Our Spotlights
• British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR) Guest Blog
• Our funders
• How to pitch to us
• Contact EachOther
• Support Everyone, Support EachOther

What we write about

• Discrimination
• Environment
• Immigration
• Institutions
• Young People
• Black Lives Matter
• Fighting Hate with Rights
• Hostile Environment
• Reforming the Gender Recognition Act
• School Exclusions
• Sex Workers Rights
• The History Of Rights – HIV And AIDs In The UK
• Uncovering Period Poverty
• Why the Human Rights Act is crucial for the UK
• Young People and Mental Health

More than news

• EachOther's Comics
• EachOther's Videos

Explore EachOther

• About EachOther
• Commission EachOther
• Pitch to EachOther
• Our social media house rules

• Corrections & Complaints
• Privacy Policy
• Using Our Content

50 Human Rights Cases That Transformed Britain

A journey through 50 extraordinary human rights cases that transformed all of our lives. access on a desktop computer for the full experience and click the story links to read a bitesize summary of each case..

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

We use cookies to improve your experience on this website. To learn more, including how to block cookies, read our privacy policy .

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation
• Collaboration Platform
• Data Portal
• Reporting Tool
• PRI Academy
• PRI Applications

• Back to parent navigation item
• What are the Principles for Responsible Investment?
• PRI 2024-27 strategy
• A blueprint for responsible investment
• About the PRI
• Annual report
• Public communications policy
• Financial information
• Procurement
• PRI sustainability
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion for our employees
• Meet the team
• Board members
• Board committees
• PRI Board annual elections
• Signatory General Meeting (SGM)
• Signatory rights
• Serious violations policy
• Formal consultations
• Signatories
• Signatory resources
• Become a signatory
• Get involved
• Signatory directory
• Quarterly signatory update
• Multi-lingual resources
• Espacio Hispanohablante
• Programme Francophone
• Reporting & assessment
• R&A Updates
• Public signatory reports
• Progression pathways
• Showcasing leadership
• The PRI Awards
• News & events
• The PRI podcast
• News & press
• Upcoming events
• PRI in Person 2024
• All events & webinars
• Industry events
• Past events
• PRI in Person 2023 highlights
• PRI in Person & Online 2022 highlights
• PRI Digital Forums
• Investing for sustainability and the UK transition
• Webinars on demand
• Investment tools
• Introductory guides to responsible investment
• Principles to Practice
• Stewardship
• Collaborative engagements
• Active Ownership 2.0
• Listed equity
• Passive investments
• Fixed income
• Credit risk and ratings
• Private debt
• Securitised debt
• Sovereign debt
• Sub-sovereign debt
• Private markets
• Private equity
• Real estate
• Climate change for private markets
• Infrastructure and other real assets
• Infrastructure
• Hedge funds
• Investing for nature: Resource hub
• Asset owner resources
• Strategy, policy and strategic asset allocation
• Mandate requirements and RfPs
• Manager selection
• Manager appointment
• Manager monitoring
• Asset owner DDQs
• Sustainability issues
• Environmental, social and governance issues
• Environmental issues
• Circular economy
• Social issues
• Social issues - case studies
• Social issues - podcasts
• Social issues - webinars
• Social issues - blogs
• Cobalt and the extractives industry
• Clothing and Apparel Supply Chain
• Human rights

Human rights - case studies

• Modern slavery and labour rights
• Just transition
• Governance issues
• Tax fairness
• Responsible political engagement
• Cyber security
• Executive pay
• Corporate purpose
• Anti-corruption
• Whistleblowing
• Director nominations
• Climate change
• The PRI and COP28
• Inevitable Policy Response
• UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance
• Sustainability outcomes
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Sustainable markets
• Sustainable financial system
• Driving meaningful data
• Private retirement systems and sustainability
• Academic blogs
• Academic Seminar series
• Introduction to responsible investing academic research
• The Reynolds & Gifford PRI Grant
• Our policy approach
• Policy reports
• Consultations and letters
• Global policy
• Policy toolkit
• Policy engagement handbook
• Regulation database
• A Legal Framework for Impact
• Taskforce on Net Zero Policy
• Australia policy
• Canada Policy
• China policy
• Stewardship in China
• EU taxonomy
• Japan policy
• SEC ESG-Related Disclosure

• More from navigation items

Jupiter Asset Management: Incorporating human rights considerations into sovereign debt analysis

2023-01-24T10:39:00+00:00

Human rights case study

AP2: Country-level framework to assess human rights

ACSI: Improving standards of company engagement with First Nations people

2022-12-01T09:39:00+00:00

Australian Council of Superannuation Investors, in collaboration with its members, working to mitigate the risks of harm to cultural heritage

Acadian Asset Management: Engagement tipping points

2022-12-01T09:29:00+00:00

Using data science techniques to analyse company supply chains

Rathbones Group: Votes Against Slavery

2022-12-01T09:25:00+00:00

A collaborative campaign calling for improved corporate reporting on modern slavery issues at 44 companies in the FTSE 350

Öhman Fonder and Folksam: Taking on Amazon’s approach to human rights

2022-06-17T10:35:00+01:00

Storebrand Asset Management: Leading the Investors Policy Dialogue on Deforestation

2022-05-11T09:00:00+01:00

Active Ownership 2.0 case study

Glasswing Ventures: Driving DEI adoption in venture capital

2022-04-13T06:00:00+01:00

Glasswing Ventures highlights its approach to engaging in and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion activities within its firm and portfolio companies.

The Westly Group: Helping to build diverse teams for the future

The Westly Group highlights how its diversity work across deal sourcing, due diligence, portfolio management and internal hiring is starting to deliver notable results.

Rathbones: Votes against slavery

2022-02-10T08:49:00+00:00

AkademikerPension: Responsible investment in sovereign bonds

2021-11-19T07:57:00+00:00

LACERA: Integrating diversity, equity and inclusion throughout the investment process

2021-11-19T07:55:00+00:00

Dai-ichi Life: Our approach to human rights as a responsible investor

VFMC: Tackling modern slavery through external manager engagement

Illinois State Treasurer: Assessing equity, diversity and inclusion among business partners

ABN AMRO: Developing a human rights risk register

2021-11-19T06:49:00+00:00

Reconciliation and Responsible Investment Initiative

2021-11-02T13:42:00+00:00

Case study by SHARE & NATOA

MN: Collaborating through Platform Living Wage Financials

2021-10-20T07:53:00+01:00

As an investment manager for pension funds, we look to create long-term value for our clients and their beneficiaries and consider stewardship as central to realising this.

BlackRock: Active community engagement in infrastructure investing

2021-09-10T11:44:00+01:00

Coller Capital: Leveraging influence for human rights on private markets

2021-08-31T08:37:00+01:00

The private capital secondaries market is becoming more influential, presenting an opportunity from an ESG perspective, including human rights promotion.

PAI Partners: Defending human rights in the supply chain

2021-08-31T07:33:00+01:00

StepStone: Considering labour, land and data rights in ESG analysis

Polaris: Respecting human rights in private equity

2021-08-31T07:30:00+01:00

FSN Capital: Identifying and addressing human rights in the value chain

Abris: Incorporating human rights in the investment lifecycle

Increasing Crehana’s reach in low-income populations

2020-11-01T06:00:00+00:00

Case study by Acumen LatAm Impact Ventures LLC - “ALIVE Ventures” and Crehana Education

A scalable private market solution for preserving and rehabilitating housing for America’s “missing middle” – Bridge Workforce and Affordable Housing Fund LP

Case study by Bridge Investment Group

Analysis of the impact of an investment portfolio on society and on SDGs

Case study by VidaCaixa

AI ethics and data governance

Case study by EOS at Federated Hermes

Engaging ICT companies to better protect children from sexual exploitation online

Case study by Christian Brothers Investment Services

Investor Mining and Tailings Safety Initiative

Case study by Church of England Pensions Board and the Council on Ethics of the Swedish National Pension Funds

AP2: Human Rights

2020-08-03T06:46:00+01:00

SDG outcomes case study

PRI Awards 2019 case study: Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index

2019-09-10T08:53:00+01:00

Company: FAIRR

PRI Awards 2019 case study: Managing risk associated with modern slavery

Company: CDC Group

PRI Awards 2019 case study: Kigali Bulk Water Supply Project

2019-09-10T08:52:00+01:00

Company: Investec Asset Management

PRI Awards 2019 case study: Platform Living Wage Financials

2019-09-10T08:51:00+01:00

Company: MN (on behalf of the PLWF)

PRI Awards 2019 case study: Cadmos Peace Investment Fund

2019-09-10T08:50:00+01:00

Company: de Pury Pictet Turrettini (PPT)

CP Foods works to eradicate slavery in the Thai seafood supply chain

2016-06-09T15:57:00+01:00

Engaging with electronics companies on sourcing conflict minerals

2013-09-01T11:23:00+01:00

• News and press
• Annual Report
• PRI governance
• Modern Slavery Statement
• Privacy policy
• The PRI is an investor initiative in partnership with UNEP Finance Initiative and UN Global Compact .

• PRI Association, 25 Camperdown Street, London, E1 8DZ, UK
• Company no: 7207947
• +44 (0)20 3714 3141
• [email protected]
• PRI DISCLAIMER The information contained on this website is meant for the purposes of information only and is not intended to be investment, legal, tax or other advice, nor is it intended to be relied upon in making an investment or other decision. All content is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not providing advice on legal, economic, investment or other professional issues and services. PRI Association is not responsible for the content of websites and information resources that may be referenced. The access provided to these sites or the provision of such information resources does not constitute an endorsement by PRI Association of the information contained therein. PRI Association is not responsible for any errors or omissions, for any decision made or action taken based on information on this website or for any loss or damage arising from or caused by such decision or action. All information is provided “as-is” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy or timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied. Content authored by PRI Association For content authored by PRI Association, except where expressly stated otherwise, the opinions, recommendations, findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed are those of PRI Association alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of any contributors or any signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment (individually or as a whole). It should not be inferred that any other organisation referenced endorses or agrees with any conclusions set out. The inclusion of company examples does not in any way constitute an endorsement of these organisations by PRI Association or the signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment. While we have endeavoured to ensure that information has been obtained from reliable and up-to-date sources, the changing nature of statistics, laws, rules and regulations may result in delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information. Content authored by third parties The accuracy of any content provided by an external contributor remains the responsibility of such external contributor. The views expressed in any content provided by external contributors are those of the external contributor(s) alone, and are neither endorsed by, nor necessarily correspond with, the views of PRI Association or any signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment other than the external contributor(s) named as authors.

Site powered by Webvision Cloud

Human Rights Case Law Project

• Vulnerable Persons Project

Published cases referring to the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)

The UQ/Caxton Human Rights Case Law Project is an initiative of the UQ School of Law and  Caxton Legal Centre Inc . The aim of this project is to ensure that practitioners, researchers, students and members of the public have easy access to all published cases that refer to the  Human Rights Act 2019  (Qld). 

Case notes for all published decisions that mention the  Human Rights Act 2019  (Qld) will be added to this page. Please be patient with us – we are a small team so the case notes might not appear immediately, but we will do our best to complete them as quickly as possible.

This project is run by  Professor Tamara Walsh  ( UQ Pro Bono Centre ) and Bridget Burton (Caxton Legal Centre).

Current team members are: Laura Rowswell (Student Leader), Liisa Kuru (Student Leader), Laura Hall, Kano Nawagawa, Imogen Ryan-Kerr, Emily Gracias, Sarah Millar, Ella North, Elize Atme, Diksha Arora, Ocean Desta-Gebru and Bethany Jones.

Many thanks to our founding members: Elizabeth Aisi, Linden Peacock and Tulli Seton.

Case notes are available by keyword below and in alphabetical order .

Case notes by keyword

Children and Families Civil Procedure Commercial Criminal Law and Corrective Services Cultural rights Discrimination Domestic Violence Education, Training and Employment Health, Mental Health and Guardianship Planning and Environment Political Freedoms Privacy and Confidentiality Public Law Considerations Tenancy and Social Housing

Children and Families

Ab v cd [2020] qcat 295, abd v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2021] qcat 57, am v director general department of justice and attorney general [2023] qcat 6, amd v director general, department of justice and attorney-general [2022] qcat 4, applicant hc v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2022] qcat 325, be v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2020] qcat 498, bjm v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2022] qcat 365, bpm v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2022] qcat 286, ca v director-general, department of justice and attorney general [2022] qcat 305, ca v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2020] qcat 452.

Return to top

Civil Procedure

Angelopoulos v state of queensland [2021] qcat 421, brisbane marine pilots pty ltd (in liquidation) v general manager of maritime safety queensland, department of transport and main roads and ors (costs) [2022] qcat 225, dupois v queensland police & anor [2022] qsc 241, fitzgerald v venables & anor [2022] qsc 78, flowers v state of new south wales [2019] nswsc 1467, hutchison v state of queensland (queensland health) [2021] qirc 317, jdt v pdl (no 2) [2022] qdc 147, johnston & ors v carroll (apm, commissioner of the queensland police service) [2022] qsc 115, johnston & ors v commissioner of police (qld) & ors; witthahn & ors v chief executive of hospital & health services & director general of queensland health & ors; sutton & ors v commissioner of police (qld) & ors; baxter & ors v chief health officer & ors, knuth v queensland building and construction commission [2022] qcat 172, body corporate for the lakes-cairns cts 28090 v sunshine group australia pty ltd [2023] qcat 39, marino law v vc ([2021]) qcat 348, reef house property pty ltd & ors v commissioner for liquor and gaming regulation & anor [2021] qcat 383, ritson v ryan [2021] qcata 100, tamarin pty ltd & otmoor pty ltd as trustee v wicks [2021] qcata 146, wagners cement pty ltd & anor v boral resources (qld) pty ltd & anor [2020] qsc 124, westpac banking corporation & anor v heslop & anor (no 2) [2020] qsc 256, criminal law and corrective services, attorney-general for qld v grant [2022] qsc 180, attorney-general for the state of queensland v haynes [2020] qsc 348, attorney-general v carter [2020] qsc 217, baggaley v commonwealth director of public prosecutions [2020] qca 179, boyy v executive director of specialist operations of queensland corrective services [2019] qsc 283, commissioner of police v keating-jones [2022] qdc 56, crossman v queensland police service [2020] qdc 122 and 123, director-general, department of justice and attorney-general v map [2022] qcata 34, cultural rights, bowie v queensland police service and ors [2022] qlc 8, hannigan and associates pty ltd & anor v da cunha & anor [2022] qlc 14, waratah coal pty ltd v youth verdict ltd & ors (no 6) [2022] qlc 21, accoom v pickering [2020] qsc 388, discrimination, angelopoulos v state of queensland [2022] qcat 163, bb v state of queensland & ors [2020] qcat 496, burleigh town village pty ltd (3) [2022] qcat 285, coonan v registrar of births, deaths and marriages [2020] qcat 434, dean-braieoux v state of queensland (queensland police service) [2021] qirc 209, fernwood womens health clubs (australia) pty ltd [2021] qcat 164, frost v state of queensland & ors [2020] qcata 144, gilbert v metro north hospital health service & ors [2020] qirc 084, gorgievski v gold coast city council & anor [2022] qcat 365, isles v state of queensland [2021] qcat 135, domestic violence, sh v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2023] qcat 293, queensland college of teachers v teacher nsp [2023] qcat 105, gee v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2022] qcat 260, dlm v wer & the commissioner of police [2022] qdc 79, map v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2020] qcat 527, ed v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2021] qcat 56, dl v director-general, department of justice and attorney general ([2021]) qcat 61, education, training and employment, abbott v state of queensland (department of education) [2021] qirc 113, amaya v state of queensland (queensland health) [2022] qirc 117, bakhash v state of queensland (department of education) [2022] qirc 362, basnayake v tafe queensland [2022] qirc 444, bezett v state of queensland (queensland fire and emergency services) [2023] qirc 048, bishop v state of queensland (queensland ambulance service) [2022] qirc 292, bj [2022] qcat 326, health, mental health and guardianship, adu [2021] qcat 70, adw [2021] qcat 453, am [2021] qcat 394, as [2022] qcat 148, attorney-general for the state of queensland v glh [2021] qmhc 4, bcc [2021] qcat 123, blk [2022] qcat 222, carne v crime and corruption commission [2021] qsc 228, cc [2020] qcat 367, planning and environment, cement australia (exploration) pty ltd & anor v east end mine action group inc & anor (no 4) [2021] qlc 22, new acland coal pty ltd v oakey coal action alliance inc. & ors (no 2) [2021] qlc 44, optus mobile pty ltd v sunshine coast regional council & ors [2020] qpec 15, waratah coal pty ltd v youth verdict ltd & ors (no 5) [2022] qlc 4, waratah coal pty ltd v youth verdict ltd & ors [2020] qlc 33, political freedoms, sunny v state of queensland (queensland health) [2022] qirc 119, steinhardt v state of queensland (queensland health) [2022] qirc 111, bil v queensland police service - weapons licensing [2022] qcat 150, bell v state of queensland [2022] qsc 80, doedens v state of queensland (queensland ambulance service) [2022] qirc 263, collins v state of queensland (queensland health) [2022] qirc 215, morgan v parole board queensland [2022] qsc 280, privacy and confidentiality, aa v state of queensland (office of industrial relations) [2021] qcat 258, angelopoulos v silkwire pty ltd & anor [2022] qcat 52, benjamin stewart shannon v queensland police service [2022] qcat 158, dkm [2020] qcat 441, dkm [2020] qcat 443, fbn v director-general, department of justice and attorney-general [2020] qcat 260, health ombudsman v orc [2020] qcat 181, public law considerations, aitchison v queensland police service – weapons licensing [2023] qcat 45, amos v state of queensland (queensland health) [2022] qirc 197, ba, dc, fe v state of queensland [2022] qcat 332, balemi v ingles [2020] qcata 58, blomfield v state of queensland (queensland health) [2022] qirc, bloxham v state of queensland (queensland police service) [2022] qirc 37, tenancy and social housing, bowie v gela [2022] qcata 112, gold coast property expo v rhodes [2022] qcata 120, horizon housing company v ross [2020] qcat 41, imm v department of housing and public works [2020] qcata 73, the state of queensland through the department of housing and public works v tenant [2020] qcat 144.

• Solitary Confinement Report
• Case notes in alphabetical order

Annual report

2020/21 Annual Report for the Human Rights Case Law Project (PDF, 123.7 KB)

Please contact our group with any enquiries at [email protected] .

These case notes are intended to provide summarised general information only. They do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such.  If the subject matter of any case note relates to a transaction or matter of particular concern, you should seek your own independent formal legal advice from an admitted legal practitioner.  Please note, UQ does not offer legal services to the public.

UQ Law research

Connect with our researchers.

Collaborate with us to solve today's pressing challenges. Find out how we can work together . 

Find a researcher by name Find researchers by research area Research themes & challenges Potential HDR projects Summer/Winter research scholarships What's on

Follow UQ Law research on X

Subscribe for updates

Online resources

UQ Law Journal ANZ Maritime Law Journal Submissions and reports Deaths in Custody Project Domestic & Family Violence Bench Book Domestic Violence Case Studies Australian Feminist Judgements Project Human Rights Case Law Project  

All publications and resources

Funded projects

Human Rights

Weir v. U.S.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement .

25 Human Rights Cases

Held v. Montana

National Security

ACLU v. DOD – FOIA Case Seeking Biden Administration’s Presidential Policy Memorandum

Civil Liberties

Barrani v. Salt Lake City

Prisoners' Rights

Ashker v. Governor of California

Egbert v. Boule

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Human rights

• Business and society
• Social and global issues
• Age and generational issues
• Developing countries
• Global health

How Tony's Chocolonely Created a Purpose-Driven (and Profitable) Supply Chain

• Frans Pannekoek
• Thomas Breugem
• Luk N. Van Wassenhove
• September 11, 2023

Convincing CEOs to Make Harassment Prevention a Priority

• Chai R Feldblum
• Sharon P Masling
• November 14, 2018

The Downside of Focusing on Women and Girls

• Timothy Ogden
• March 09, 2011

How Olympic Sponsors Can Be Socially Responsible

• Mark R. Kramer
• April 11, 2008

Research: Public Opinion Is Not Enough to Hold Companies Accountable

• Matthew Amengual
• Alexander Rustler
• September 06, 2022

LangKomm Sweden: Traversing Middle East Politics

• Amos Owen Thomas
• July 11, 2017

Social Auditing in Global Supply Chains: Forced Labor in the Malaysian Rubber Glove Industry

• David Bishop
• September 02, 2021

Fallen Idol? Aung San Suu Kyi & the Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis

• Pamela Varley
• Christopher Robichaud
• October 24, 2018

China: the New "New Normal"

• Richard H.K. Vietor
• Haviland Sheldahl-Thomason
• June 23, 2016

Royal Dutch/Shell in Nigeria (A)

• Lynn Sharp Paine
• Mihnea C. Moldoveanu
• February 22, 1999

John Chambers, Cisco, and China: Upgrading a Golden Shield

• Geoffrey G. Jones
• Emily Grandjean
• June 25, 2018

Yahoo! in China (A)

• Sandra J. Sucher
• Daniel Baer
• February 04, 2009

H&M, Rana Plaza, and Beyond: Fast Fashion Under the Microscope

• Andrew Hoffman
• June 19, 2023

George Soros: A Life in Full

• March 08, 2022

Google: Should "Dragonfly" Fly?

• Veena Keshav Pailwar
• September 12, 2019

Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World

• Alison Taylor
• February 13, 2024

Big Chocolate: Child Slavery in the Cocoa Industry

• September 28, 2021

Nike's Response to Human Rights Abuse Claims in China

• May 09, 2021

International Sourcing in Athletic Footwear: Nike and Reebok

• Philip M. Rosenzweig
• May 19, 1994

Maggie Lena Walker and the Independent Order of St. Luke

• Anthony J. Mayo
• Shandi O. Smith
• November 25, 2008

Tony's Chocolonely: A Bittersweet Journey to Make Chocolate Slave-Free

• April 17, 2023

Tesla's Battery Supply Chain: A Growing Concern

• April 22, 2022

Burma Pipeline

• Lane La Mure
• Debora L. Spar
• February 25, 1998

The Michelin Group India: Handling Accusations of Misconduct

• Alison E. Holm
• August 29, 2022

Capitalism, Slavery, and Reparations

• Sophus A. Reinert
• Cary Williams
• April 15, 2021

How Companies Reckon with Past Wrongdoing

• January 18, 2022

Popular Topics

Partner center.

20 Landmark Cases on Human Rights

This article explains 20 landmark cases on human rights that happened in the history of india.

This article explains 20 Landmark Cases on Human Rights that happened in the history of India and also proved to be essential in adding core value to the concept of Human Rights. Human rights are actually basic rights and freedom that belong to every individual in the world from birth until death. Through various cases, it has been reflected that the life, liberty, privacy, and dignity of any individual must be given paramount significance.

The author admires the role of the judiciary in the protection as well as promotion of human rights. The apex court of our country has always utilized its power of interpretation with such perfection that definitely broadened the scope of rights and as such made it expedient for people to enjoy their human rights.

Human Rights: A brief introduction

The concept of human rights is a very basic concept that is known to all of us in some or the other way. Rights that all we humans possess are human rights and are subject to protection. Respecting human rights should be considered a responsibility towards each fellow human being. At the same time, we cannot overemphasize only the rights and ignore duties. The rights of the children imply corresponding duties of the parent; the rights of women imply corresponding duties of the men towards women folk; we should perceive them.

If everybody does his duty the question of rights will not arise at all. The education on human rights should be undertaken in this manner that instead of worrying about the rights, one must be careful of the duties that one is performing.

All humanity is one undivided and indivisible family, and each one of us is responsible for the misdeeds of all the others. I cannot detach myself from the wickedest soul. – Mahatma Gandhi

1. Ramlila Maidan Incident v. Union of India and Ors. [1]

This case dates back to 2011 wherein there was an organization named Bharat Swabhiman Trust that tried to organize a yoga training camp that was supposed to include around five thousand people in Delhi's Ramlila Maidan . However, the situation did not seem to be simple. Because of an anti-government agitation on the issue of corruption and black money , instead of five thousand people, nearly fifty thousand people gathered on the grounds and the police had to implement Section 144 of the CrPC prohibiting the crowd from further creating any ruckus.

After Section 144 got implemented, it didn't take much time for the police to move inside the Ramlila ground at midnight while everyone was asleep and started lathi-charge and forced the citizens to empty the ground. This led to further agitation among citizens as they started throwing bricks and further, the police retreated with tear gases.

The court held that there is a difference between restriction of a right and prohibition of a right where the prohibition of the right standard can only be applied to such cases where no lesser alternative would be adequate.

Court also said that Section 144 intended to serve the public purpose and this section could only be invoked when the authorities are satisfied that there is an immediate need for prevention of danger and damage to human life, and safety and there is a prima-facie disturbance. The court also heavily criticized the police for its act of entering the grounds at midnight and said that reasonable notice must be provided to the public before imposing such an order to allow the public to leave the concerned site.

Through this case, a very important right of right to privacy of the sleeping person from inclusion was protected and the code observed that privacy also prevails while a person is sleeping.

2. M.C Mehta v. Union Of India [2]

In 1985, there was a leakage of Oleum gas from one of the units of Shriram Foods and Fertilizers Industries in Delhi, belonging to Delhi Cloth Mill Ltd. In this leakage, hundreds of lives were taken. In this case, the issues were basically related to whether such hazardous industries should be allowed to be operated in such areas and if they are allowed, whether any regulating mechanism should be evolved.

However, if explored from the Human Rights angle , the court held that in Oleum Gas Leak Case , a Constitution Bench discussed this question at length and held thus:

"We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken".

3. Lalita Kumari v. Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [3]

In this case, a minor girl was kidnapped and when the father of the girl approached the police station the police refused to register the FIR. The father then moved to the Supreme Court over the failure of the police to register the FIR and simultaneously it was registered on the order of the court. The petition filed by the father was that the court must direct the police to apprehend the suspects and recover the girl.

In this case, which was related to the duty of the police to mandatorily register an FIR for the commission of a cognizable offence when came to the final judgment, the court said that the registration of FIR is mandatory under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code , and if the offence is cognizable no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such situation as the scope of preliminary inquiry is not to cross-check the veracity of the information received but only to make sure whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

Also, an important stance taken by the Court was that while ensuring the rights of the accused and the complainant, any inquiry which is done firsthand must be time-bound and should be completed within 7 days.

4. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1985 [4]

This case dated back to the year 1981, wherein, in the state of Maharashtra it was decided by the municipal corporation that the pavement dwellers and those residing in slums must be evicted. Simultaneously, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra made an announcement over the same, and not much later a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay for an order of injunction was filed. The issues involved in this case were related to the scope of the right to life under Article 21 of the constitution and the question was whether pavement dwellers are responses under the Indian Penal Code.

The exact words of the court were:

"No individual can trade the freedoms that are conferred on him by the Constitution. A concession made by him in a proceeding, whether by an error of law or otherwise, that he does not possess or assert a particular fundamental right, cannot create an estoppel against him in this proceeding or in any other subsequent procedure. Such a concession, if implemented, would run counter to the purpose of the Constitution."

The court said that the Right to Life which is protected under Article 21 is very far-reaching and it cannot be stated that life can be removed only in accordance with the procedure established by law; the right to livelihood is a very important aspect of the right to life as no one can live without means of subsistence at any given time.

5. Vishaka v. State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 [5]

This was indeed a landmark case in the history of Human Rights when it comes to the working condition for women. In this case, the Supreme Court witnessed a PIL against the state of Rajasthan and the Union of India filed by Vishaka and a few other women. In this case, a social worker named Bhanwri Devi was brutally gang-raped while she was doing a noble cause of barring child marriage. However, due to insufficient evidence, the case was dismissed.

This case spread like fire among all the women workers and sexual harassment in the workplace which is violative of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 15, and 21 was questioned.

The court held that clearly there has been a violation of Articles 14, 15, and 19 (1) of the constitution and also violations of all the international conventions that India was a part of. Through this case, Vishaka guidelines were issued and the judgment also provided some basic definitions like that of 'sexual harassment at the workplace along with that, guidelines for protection were provided as well. ( Read More about Vishaka v. State Of Rajasthan Here )

6. Shreya Singhal v. Union Of India [6]

In this case, two women posted some objectionable comments on Facebook regarding the 'bandh' (shutdown) announced in the city of Mumbai after the death of a political leader. They were arrested under section 66A of the Information Technology Act . However, they were released later on. This incident gained a lot of media attention and the issue concerned was whether it infringes the fundamental right to free speech and expression.

The petitioner argued that this section is unconstitutional as it encourages annoyance, danger, obstruction, and ill-will; and further, they said that this law has a 'chilling effect on the right to freedom of speech and expression. The court held that Section 66A is violative of the Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)A of the constitution and therefore section 66A of the IT Act must be declared void. The court declined to address the petitioner's challenge of procedural unreasonableness as the law was already declared unconstitutional in the previous proceedings.

7. National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) v. Union Of India [7]

This was a very special case and probably the most important one in the history of Human Rights in India. Transgender, who also form a part of the population were not legally recognized as persons before this judgment. They faced inequalities in various walks of life and their human rights were often violated. This case was filed by the National Legal Service Authority of India with the view that transgender must be legally recognized as persons who do not fall in the category of either male or female but in a different category as the third gender.

In this case, along with recognizing a transgender as the third gender, there was a long and complex discussion over gender identity. The court recognized transgender as any other person have Fundamental Rights under both Constitution of India and International Laws . It was decided that transgender persons have all the rights including the right provided under Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1) A and 21 of the constitution .

The apex court also referred to International Human Rights Treaties and the Yogyakarta Principles to recognize the Human Rights of transgender people. Along with recognition of their rights, it was ordered that they must be treated as minorities and for them, there must be reservations in jobs, education, and other sectors as and when the need arises.

8. Mohammed Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [8]

In this case, the petitioner Shah Bano Begum was thrown out of the matrimonial home by her husband uttering ' talaq ' three times. Her husband abandoned her from the maintenance of Rs. 200 which he was supposed to give. After pronouncing triple talaq, he hid under the veil, that he is not supposed to give any maintenance. The Local Court however directed Muhammad Ahmad to furnish Rupees 25 per month as maintenance to Shah Bano.

The petitioner further took this case to the Supreme Court wherein, the judgment as pronounced by CJ Chandrachud was that section 125 (3) of the CrPC. solicited Muslims without any sort of discrimination. Supreme Court held that it is the responsibility of the husband towards the divorced wife to maintain her. In short, the Supreme Court specifically put pressure on the statement that triple talaq cannot take away the maintenance right of a divorced Muslim woman who is unable to maintain herself or her children.

This case particularly focused on the Human rights of a woman irrespective of her religion . This case proved to be a landmark judgment as based on it, many cases with similar issues were resolved. (Read More about this case Here)

9. Harvinder Kaur v. Harmandir Singh Chaudhary [9]

In this case, the petitioner was married to Harmandir Singh and both of them were employed. From the wedlock, they had a child and subsequently, the petitioner moved out with the child and the husband filed a case under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act after which the petitioner filed this present case in the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The issue was whether Section 9 was constitutionally valid and whether or not the degree for restitution was against the right to life, equality, and privacy . The High Court while deciding the matter found that the trouble from the wife was intentional and without a reasonable cause and hence, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal. The court rejected the plaint that personal law was discriminatory towards gender inequality in India. It also said that the introduction of constitutional law into the home (pointing towards the personal laws) was most inappropriate in India.

10. Kesavanand Bharati v. State of Kerala [10]

This very famous case of 1973 was decided by the largest bench in the history of India which was 13 judges bench . The petitioner was the founder of 'Edneer Mutt' situated in Kerala and he challenged the Kerala government's attempt to impose restrictions on the management of its property.

Through this case, India was gifted with the Doctrine of Basic Structure . The court held that the doctrine of basic structure cannot be violated and accordingly the court outlined that the power to amend the basic structure is very very limited. It is to be noted that this case overruled the Golaknath case and the court specifically said that only because the Parliament has the power under Article 368 of the constitution , it cannot rewrite the whole constitution taking into view its power. (Read More about this case Here)

11. Habeas Corpus Case – ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla [11]

This case came into existence at the time of emergency when Smt. Indira Gandhi's election to Lok Sabha was challenged before the Allahabad High Court and agitated from the same she declared an emergency on 26th November 1975 under which a lot of people including renowned politicians like Jai Prakash Narayan and Atal Bihari Vajpayee were arrested under (Maintenance of Internal Security) MISA Act . A lot of petitions throughout the country started rushing into the courts and petitioners started getting judgments in their favour as well.

The government became concerned with the High Court's order and therefore approached the Supreme Court in the case of ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla. This case was a black spot in the Indian historical judgment led by five judges bench.

Justice H.R. Khanna gave a biased judgment which was heavily criticized. The constitutional validity of Section 16A (9) of the MISA Act was also upheld . Even Justice Bhagwati expressed his regret for siding with the majority by saying that he was wrong not to uphold the cause of individual liberty. But as soon as the emergency ended the Supreme Court changed its decision by giving Article 21 a permanent status and linking it with Articles 14 and 19 . (Read More about this case Here)

12. Joseph Shine v. Union of India [12]

In this case, the petitioner Joseph Shine filed a PIL under section 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutionality of the offence of Adultery mentioned in section 497 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 198 (2) of Cr.P.C.

In this case, the Supreme Court said that the husband is not a master of the wife and therefore adultery cannot be treated as a crime however it still is a reasonable ground for divorce and it will be considered criminal if it leads to abetment of suicide. Other than that, adultery is not a criminal act as it violates the dignity of a woman infringing Article 21 of the Constitution and ultimately the Human Rights. In July 2018, the Supreme Court struck down section 497 of the Indian Penal Code considering it violative of Articles 14 15, and 21 of the constitution .

13. Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. v. The State of Kerala and Ors. [13]

This case infamous as the Sabrimala case was an important judgment both in terms of human rights as well as busting the religion-related myths. The Sabrina temple located inside the Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala restricted the entry of women between the age of 10 and 50 which is the menstruating age of women , from entering into the temple.

The Supreme Court received restrictions over the matter through Article 32 of the constitution of India and after a long led trial, it decided that the step of devotion to divinity is not subjected to the rigidity and orthodoxy of gender which as a result affects the dignity of women and degrades their status. The Supreme Court allowed the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple and upholding the principles of human rights , stated that devotion cannot be subjected to gender discrimination .

14. Navtej Singh Johar v. Union Of India [14]

In this case, the Supreme Court took Article 14 as the base of the judgment. The court said that criminalizing the consensual sex between two individuals only because they are homosexual is against the order of nature and is not a proper intelligible differential and has no rational nexus.

The Supreme Court also added that sex includes both biological sex plus sexual orientation which was earlier observed in the Naz Foundation case and said that it is the proper approach to steer this case as well.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said,

human sexuality cannot be narrowly defined and Article 19 gives the freedom of expression and includes expressing one on identity without any fear. Taking Article 21 into consideration the court said that the right to life and liberty includes privacy, dignity and autonomy for each individual. Section 377 cannot be put as a restriction before the individual to enjoy all the above-mentioned rights.

15. K. Basu, A.K Johri v. State of West Bengal [15]

This case is infamous as D.K. Basu case is one of the landmark cases that prima facie deals with custodial deaths but relates to human rights in terms of the arrest of a person . D.K. Basu was the executive chairman of the Legal Aid Service of West Bengal. He wrote a letter to the Supreme Court of India mentioning an incident of death in police custody and lockups. He requested the letter to be treated as a writ petition under Public Interest Litigation .

Upon the same being accepted, Mr. A.K. Johri wrote another letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court mentioning a man named Mahesh Bihari who died in police custody.

This Supreme Court held that prisoners should never be deprived of their fundamental rights guaranteed to every person under Article 21 and only reasonable restrictions could be imposed upon such rights without infringing them together. In the same case, the Supreme Court gave around 11 guidelines notwithstanding the constitutional provisions which were to be followed while making arrest and detainment upon failure of which department inquiry will be set up and also contempt of court proceedings in High Court will be taken up.

Human rights also extend to prisoners and detain is was the important principle that was revised in this case.

16. Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab [16]

In this case between Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and the State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India held that the courts' discretion to provide anticipatory bail cannot be nearly restricted because the punishment for a specific crime is death or imprisonment. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia was the Minister of Irrigation and Power in the state of Punjab under the Congress government. He, along with a few other persons was facing serious allegations of corruption.

The minister along with others applied for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also prayed from the High Court to direct the appellants to get bail in the due course of arrest on the basis of the above-pressed charges. It didn't take much longer for the High Court to dismiss the application but on special leave to appeal the application was allowed by the Supreme Court .

Now, the question arises of how is it related to human rights . It indeed is because by restricting a person who is doubted to do some wrong we protect the innocent and on the other hand, sometimes the innocent are unnecessarily harassed for malafide purposes. In both circumstances, it becomes the moral duty of the courts to think from the perspective of Human Rights to arrive at a better conclusion.

17. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [17]

This case was a landmark case in Human Rights relating to the power of a magistrate to order an accused to give their voice samples to the police for comparison. In this case, during the investigation, the police wanted to collect the voice example of an accused to compare it with the recorded conversation which was evidence. However, the accused refrained from doing so and mentioned that there was no specific provision in the CrPC for the same, and neither did the magistrate possess any power to give such a direction to gather a voice sample.

Now the question arose whether Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution extends to protect such accused from being forced to give their voice sample during the interrogation .

The court said that in collecting such samples there are no specific provisions mentioned in the CrPC. however, there are provisions relating to the collection of DNA samples, handwriting samples, blood samples, etc, so taking voice samples would not be unfair, and coming on the privacy terms compelling a person to give a voice specimen does not become violative of their fundamental right to privacy ; and to give an example, the court stated the famous case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India .

18. PUCL v. Union Of India [18]

What will you do if you get to know that your phone is being tapped? This indeed was a very interesting case relating to the burning topic of tapping of phone calls. The petitioner who was from a civil rights organization filed a PIL in the Supreme Court in which the authenticity of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 was challenged.

According to the section, the government is authorized to intercept the phone for any specified reason. In the petition, it was mentioned that the power of interception was undefined and very arbitrary. The Supreme Court observed that section 5(2) did not mention any specific procedure according to which the interception should be exercised and yes it was arbitrary and not reasonable and fair. So, without declaring the section unconstitutional, the court set up procedural safeguards instead for those authorized for tapping phones.

19. State of Haryana and Ors. v. CH. Bhajanlal and Ors. [19]

In this case, the petitioner was a former Chief Minister of the state of Haryana and was accused by his political rival of gathering wealth that exceeded his income. Subsequently, an FIR was registered under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act and the petitioner sought to quash the FIR. However, the High Court after discussing the allegations held, that allegations against the petitioner don't constitute and therefore there was no bias for the police to have registered FIR, and subsequently it was further challenged by the state before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court has the power to quash the FIR to protect an accused from malicious prosecution when a proceeding is instituted with the wrong intention of simply harassing a person the court can step in to cause the entire proceeding to meet the ends of justice. In this case, the Supreme Court issued seven guidelines to be followed by the court in the exercise of its inherent powers rested by section 482 of the CrPC .

20. Sarla Mudgal v. Union Of India [20]

In this case, there were various petitioners including Meena Mathur, Sunita Narula, alias Fatima, Geeta Rani, and Sushmita Ghosh. The issues that were raised in this case were whether a Hindu husband married under Hindu law by embracing Islam can solemnize the second marriage and whether such a marriage without dissolving the first marriage under the law would be a valid marriage also the question was whether the apostate husband would be guilty of the offence under section 494 of the IPC .

The court considered the practice of converting to another religion for the purpose of second marriage without dissolving the first marriage as invalid because it was against the principle of justice equity and good conscience. The court also stated that mere conversion from one religion to another does not dissolve the first marriage of a person and the only way to dissolve a marriage is by divorce obtained by the competent court.

There is a very famous shloka in the Hindu mythology that goes:

Sarve Bhavantu Sukhina, sarve santu niramayah Sarve bhadrani pasyantu, ma kaschiddhu khabhagabhaveta

It means that may all sentient beings be at peace, may no one suffer from illness, May all see what is auspicious, may no one suffer. May we get peace, peace, and peace.

Although law has no religion except meeting the ends of justice, we can relate that Human Rights are based on the principle of well being of all, whether by granting justice to one or by reasonably restricting another. And as Mother Teresa said

" Human Rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity."

References:

[1] Writ Petition (CRL.) No. 122 of 2011

[2] M. C. Mehta v. Union Of India 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819

[3] Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 OF 2008

[4] Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, 1986 AIR 180, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 51

[5] Vishaka v. State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

[6] Writ Petition(Criminal) No.167 OF 2012

[7] Writ Petition (Civil) N0. 400 OF 2012

[8] 1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844

[9] AIR 1984 Delhi 66, ILR 1984 Delhi 546, 1984 RLR 187

[10] Writ Petition (Civil) 135 of 1970

[11] 1976 AIR 1207, 1976 SCR 172

[12] Writ Petition (Criminal) N0. 194 OF 2017

[13] 2018 SCC OnLine Ker 5802

[14] Writ Petition (Criminal) N0. 76 OF 2016

[15] Writ Petition ( CRL.) NO. 592 OF 1987

[16] 1980 AIR 1632

[17] Criminal Appeal N0. 2003 OF 2012

[18] AIR 1997 SC 568, JT 1997 (1) SC 288, 1996 (9) SCALE 318, (1997) 1 SCC 301, 1996 Supp 10 SCR 321, 1997 (1) UJ 187 SC

[19] 1992 AIR 604, 1990 SCR Supl. (3) 259

[20] 995 AIR 1531, 1995 SCC (3) 635

• Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
• Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination

Aayushi Tiwari

A Law Student and a lifetime humanitarian from the historically rich state, Bihar. Avid reader, writes to bring a difference and a public speaker to enlighten others.

Related News

• Advice and guidance
• Our projects
• Our research
• Publications library
• Legal responses
• Legal casework
• Inquiries and investigations
• What are human rights?
• The Human Rights Act
• Exercising your human rights
• Our human rights work
• Equality Act 2010
• Know your rights
• Protected characteristics
• Equality Act FAQs
• Corporate reporting

This site will taken offline on 22 July 2024

• Human rights case studies
• Secondary education resources
• Useful information
• Lesson plan ideas
• Why teach equality and human rights?
• Understanding equality
• Understanding human rights
• Equality case studies
• Glossary of terms
• Useful links
• Secondary education resource acknowledgements and testimonials
• Assembly plans
• Lesson videos

A selection of case studies relating to human rights

Youth cases, right to respect for private and family life (article 8, echr).

A young man called Graham Gaskin was very badly treated in care for many years. He wanted to read his social services files, which were kept by Liverpool City Council. The Council refused to let him see all his files. Graham Gaskin went through the courts in the UK to try and force the Council to let him see his files, but the courts agreed with the Council. So he took his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights said the Council had breached Graham Gaskin’s rights. The Court agreed he needed to see his social services files in order to try and make sense of his childhood and his treatment in care. As a result of Graham Gaskin’s complaint, which was decided by the European Court in 1989, it is now much easier for people in care or in contact with social services to see information that is written about them. Councils must now keep files concerning children in care for 75 years.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9, ECHR)

In 2004, a 16 year-old girl called Shabina Begum complained to the UK courts about her school’s uniform rules. Her older brother helped her work with a lawyer to bring her case. Shabina’s lawyer said that her human rights had been breached because the school would not let her wear a jilbab, which she considered necessary to wear because of her religion. The UK Court of Appeal agreed Shabina’s rights had been breached, but then the case went to the House of Lords, which disagreed and said that her rights had not been breached.

Even though Shabina lost her final court case, there was a lot of discussion about school uniforms in the newspapers and on TV. The Government wrote new rules for schools emphasising that students and parents must be asked their views when uniform rules are being made.

Right to a fair trial (Article 6, ECHR)

In 1999, two boys complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their rights under the ECHR had been breached. They had been put on trial in court for killing a two year-old, and were just 10 years old when they committed the murder. The boys' lawyers said that they had not had a fair trial because their case was dealt with in an adult court. There were a number of journalists present, which made the boys confused and frightened.

Judges in the European Court of Human Rights agreed that the boys' right to a fair trial had been breached. The judgment said the UK Government should make changes to protect the rights of other children and young people appearing in court in future. A lot of changes were made, though many human rights organisations and campaigners are still concerned about how children who commit crimes in the UK are treated.

Prohibition of torture (Article 3, European Convention on Human Rights)

In 2007, the families of two boys who had died in custody, during or after being restrained, complained to the UK courts about a new law which allowed staff to use physical force a lot more often on children in some prisons (called Secure Training Centres). The lawyers said that the new law breached the boys right to prohibition of torture. The UK Court of Appeal agreed and said that the new law was in direct conflict with human rights law. This meant that the new law was revoked.

Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8, European Convention on Human Rights)

Two children and an adult got help from lawyers to complain about the police. They had been stopped and searched by the police while at a protest in Kent about protecting the environment. The children were told that they were being searched for items because they were going to the protest. They were frightened by the experience. They complained to the UK courts, but before the case finished the police agreed they had breached the children’s rights. A settlement was agreed and each child received compensation of £1,125 and a personal apology from the police. A letter was also sent to every UK police force explaining why 'stop and searches' that are carried out disproportionately are against the law and what should be done differently in future.

Note: These case studies are from the Children’s Right Alliance. For more on children’s rights, visit the CRAE website . 

How human rights benefit children and young people's lives

Stop and search.

In January 2010 the European Court of Human Rights said that police blanket 'stop and search' powers, introduced under counter-terrorism legislation, are unlawful as ethnic minorities were disproportionately more likely to be stopped and searched. Between 2007 and 2009, nearly 310,000 young people aged 10 to 17 were stopped and searched by the police; 40% of these were Black children.

Corporal punishment

In February 2005 the Law Lords rejected the claim from a group of Christian head teachers, teachers and parents of four independent schools that the corporal punishment of children is central to their religious beliefs and to prohibit this in private schools is a violation of their right to practice their religion. The Law Lords found the ban on corporal punishment to be legitimate and proportionate.

In November 2004 the European Court of Human Rights said an 11 year-old boy did not have a fair trial because he did not understand the consequences of any penalty, including imprisonment. An independent psychologist said the boy was functioning between the age of a six and eight year-old.

Protection in prison

In November 2002 the High Court said children in prison must be given the same protection from abuse and harm as children in families and other institutional settings such as children's homes.

Protection from harm

In January 2001 the High Court stopped three powerful news organisations from publishing the details of two 18 year-olds who had served custodial sentences for a murder they committed when they were 10 years old. The judge said the injunctions were necessary because of "real possibility of serious physical harm and possible death".

Balancing human rights

Foreign criminals who are jailed for more than one year may be considered for deportation. In some cases, the foreign criminal may be given the right to stay in the UK if deportation breaches their human rights. A breach of human rights may include the right to private and family life if their family lives in the UK or right to life or to protection from torture if their lives could be put at risk by being deported to their own country.

This could cause a conflict of rights between the criminal and the UK public. For example, if a foreign criminal was granted the right to stay in the UK because their lives would be at risk by returning to their country, but they committed a crime that presented a threat to public safety, then this could be a conflict between the following rights:

• Rights of Criminal - The right to life (Article 2, European Convention on Human Rights) and to be protected from torture (Article 3, ECHR).
• Rights of UK Public - The right to protection of property and peaceful enjoyment of possessions (Article 1, Protocol 1, ECHR) if for example the individual has been convicted of burglary or theft.

Freedom of expression (Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights) is a fundamental right to a democratic society. However this can often conflict with the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9, European Convention on Human Rights). For example, when Sion Owens, a BNP candidate for the Welsh assembly, burnt the Koran he was exerting his freedom of expression. However, this act could incite hatred and violence against Muslim’s, threatening and conflicting with their freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The extent that people’s freedom of expression should be limited causes much debate. To review an interesting article about the limits of freedom of expression, visit here .

Examples of human rights myths

Myth 1: human rights lets travellers break the law.

Myth busted The Human Rights Act (HRA) does not provide new rights for Travellers. Even before the Human Rights Act, the 1976 Race Relations Act (now part of the Equality Act 2010) recognised Traveller's need for housing, education and health. There is a 'right to respect of his private and family life, his home and his correspondence' under the Human Rights Act, but these rights do not entitle them to set up camp anywhere, and they can be punished if they don't obey an order to vacate. But decisions about planning and how and when to vacate sites must be taken with human rights in mind, to ensure that treatment isn't disproportionate and that everyone - regardless of culture or heritage - has access to appropriate accommodation.

Examples in the media 'If you want to build a new home you have to get planning permission first. But if you are a Traveller you can bend the planning law - building where you like thanks to the Human Rights Act' - Michael Howard 2005.

Myth 2: Prisoners have human rights to video games and porn

Myth busted The Human Rights Act does not give prisoners the right to receive pornography, games machines, TV or similar items while in prison. Some prisons may allow controlled access to these privileges as part of its management regime, but this is not related to prisoner's human rights.

Rather than having more human rights, prisoners have in fact been deprived of one of their human rights - the right to liberty. However, people in prison are still human, so they don't lose access to all their rights under the Human Rights Act. Prisons have to conform to the Human Rights Act in that they are not allowed to inhumanely treat prisoners. Some of the standards prisons have to meet include educational, medical and religious facilities as well as recreation. What that recreation entails is decided by prison managers, not human rights law.

Examples in the media The Sun newspaper reported that 'Serial killer Dennis Nilsen, 60, received hardcore gay porn in jail thanks to human rights laws' (The Sun 13 May 2006). In fact, he had challenged a decision by the governor of Whitemoor prison to deny him access to pornographic material by arguing that the ban breached his human right of freedom of expression. The case failed at the very first hurdle: it never entered the judicial system at all, apart from to be thrown out. Of course human rights legislation would never legitimise his request for pornography.

Myth 3: Human rights gives criminals the right to Kentucky Fried Chicken

Myth busted This is a story that has been repeated again and again; a lot of people think that the Human Rights Act actually required the police to give the prisoner, who had escaped to the roof of his prison, to be fed Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The Government investigated this allegation and made it clear publicly that the Human Rights Act had nothing to do with the decision that was made. The police responded to his refreshment demands as part of their negotiating strategy.

Examples in the media The Sun reported this story with a headline of: 'Finger-nickin' good. Police gave the suspected car thief a meal because of his Human Rights' - The Sun 7 June 2006.

The Daily Telegraph summarised this case as being about 'A suspected car thief who bombarded police with bricks and tiles during a rooftop siege [in Gloucester] was given a Kentucky Fried Chicken takeaway meal by officers to ensure his "well-being and human rights".

Myth 4: Even the police don't think the Human Rights Act is a good idea

Myth busted There is nothing in the Human Rights Act that prevents the prosecution of offenders. In fact, it's the opposite: both the Government and the courts have a duty (under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights) to take steps to protect the public and courts sentencing criminals have to take into account the severity of the crime and the danger to the public. It wouldn't make sense to have a Human Rights Act that doesn't protect all people, especially victims.

Examples in the media This was reported in the Daily Express as an attack on the Human Rights Act, with the headline reading: 'A top detective has attacked the way the Human Rights Act is being used by killers and rapists to try to give themselves a better life.' - Daily Express 14 May 2008.

Myth 5: Human Rights Act allowed rapist to be placed with children

Myth busted This myth refers to a very sad situation where a couple with children took in a foster child who then assaulted the children. It turned out that the foster child had a history of violence. However, the Human Rights Act does not prevent public authorities from disclosing information that will allow parents to protect their children. On the contrary, the Act specifically allows for such disclosure where it is justified in the interests of public safety, for the prevention of crime or for the protection of the rights of others. The Human Rights Act had no bearing on the case whatsoever.

Examples in the media Despite this, the Daily Mail reported that 'As the rapist, now 19, began an indefinite sentence last night, there were suspicions that the local authority might have used aspects of the Human Rights Act to prevent the couple from knowing about the teenager's past.' - The Daily Mail, 3 March 2009.

Myth 6: Human rights laws stop people from taking photos in public parks

Myth busted A former BBC newsreader has hit out after a council banned him from taking pictures of flowers in public parks - in case it infringed people's human rights. In fact, there is nothing in human rights law that prevents someone taking photographs of flowers in a public place for their own use. If the photographer intended to use the photographs commercially then they might need the permission of the park's owners, but that has nothing to do with human rights law - rather to do with commercial interests.

A person's right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR might apply if a photographer was intrusive in taking photographs of an individual without their consent. Each case will depend on its facts, how the photograph is taken, what it is going to be used for, and whether there is any justification for this. An example of when this might apply is if a press photographer was aggressively chasing a celebrity so that they could take an unauthorised photo of their child, with the intention of publishing it for commercial gain.

Examples in the media This story was reported widely, in the Daily Express - (26/08/2010), Daily Mail - (26/08/2010), The Sun - (26/08/2010), Daily Record - (26/08/2010).

Myth 7: Human Rights Act gives students a right to junk food

Myth busted This myth came about from the initiative of schools to promote healthy eating by preventing the students from leaving the school at lunch times. The reporting was positioned so that it looks like the Human Rights Act is the reason that the healthy eating scheme will fail, seeming to say that forcing them to eat health food or denying them junk food is against their rights. In fact, it is common practice for many schools to only allow pupils outside the grounds if they have a parental note giving permission or if they have been awarded special privileges by the school. Guidelines from the Schools Food Trust recommend that students are kept on the school site as a way of stopping them from buying unhealthy food. It neither suggests that school gates are locked to prevent students leaving at lunchtime or that pupils are forced to eat specific foods.

Schools have a legal responsibility for their pupils during school hours. This means that they are allowed to make students stay on school premises. Human rights law says that this is a legitimate aim. However, a school would probably be breaching this legitimate aim if they either locked pupils in the school or physically forced them to eat.

Examples in the media This story was reported by the Daily Mail (Scotland), which stated that a school that wanted to lock pupils in at lunch time to break their bad eating habits could be under the Human Rights Act and Teachers would be powerless to physically detain pupils who exercised this right.

Myth 8: Human rights means that you can't publish 'WANTED' posters

Myth busted This isn't true; the right to privacy is not an absolute right, so that it can be limited in order to prevent criminal offences. Circulating suspect's photographs and the crime for which they are being sought may be proportionate. Other examples that don't breach human rights are police signs asking for information placed at the scene of the crime and Crimewatch-style reconstructions. The police do need to be careful that they do not imply that these individuals have committed crimes for which they have not been convicted as that would be libellous (covered by libel laws, not the Human Rights Act).

Examples in the media Details of 25 of Britain's worst convicted offenders are published on the Serious Organised Crime Agency's website in the hope of reducing reoffending. However, when Essex police used a similar initiative in 2003, one convicted thief claimed this use of his photograph was a breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act, as reported in the times 'Rogues Gallery of career criminals', The Times, Sean O'Neill

Myth 9: The Human Rights Act means that terrorists can stay in Britain

Myth busted No-one would argue that the state should not be able, after a fair trial, to deprive dangerous or harmful individuals of their liberty. However, most people would also agree that it is not acceptable to send people into situations where they may be tortured. Human rights do protect all individuals from torture, and if the government knows that individuals may fact torture or death in their own home countries, they have an obligation to protect them.

Calls for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped following this decision don't take into account that whether or not the Act was in force, the same decision would have been reached. The UK has signed up to numerous international treaties including, the Convention Against Torture and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights - all of which expressly forbid the government, and courts, from allowing people to be deported to face torture.

Examples in the media The Daily Telegraph reported that a court had ruled that a pair of terror suspects with links to Al Qa'eda will remain in the UK after judges ruled it would breach their human rights to deport them because their lives would be in danger if they were sent back to Pakistan. 20-May 2010, Daily Telegraph

Myth 10: Human Rights gives prisoners the right to vote

Myth busted This myth is actually true! The right to participate in free elections is a human right, and although people in prison have lost their right to liberty, they still retain other human rights. They still have the right to life, the right to be free from torture, and the right to participate in elections. This was agreed by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Hirst v the United Kingdom (No 2). In this case, John Hirst brought a case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that to deny him the right to vote was a breach of his human rights, specifically under Article 3, Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In October 2005, the Court found that a blanket ban preventing prisoners from voting was a violation of their human rights, specifically, the right to participate in free elections. The Article states that: 'the High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature', and denying prisoners the ability to participate in elections was breaching that right.

The government is now considering how to implement this ruling, which is required by law, but also gives prisoners a sense of dignity and participation. One of the hallmarks of citizenship is the right to vote; it is also a responsibility. As the Howard League for Penal Reform commented: 'If we want prisoners to return safely to the community, feeling they have a stake in society, then the right to vote is a good means of engaging individuals with the responsibilities of citizenship.'

Further examples

For more human rights case studies, visit:

• www.crae.org.uk/

Last updated: 13 Sep 2017