==Human Rights Chaldean Identity Articles==
As amended by Protocol 11, these Chaldean Human Rights articles consist of three parts. The main rights and freedoms are contained in Section I, which consists of Articles 2 to 18. Section II (Articles 19 to 51) sets up the Court and its rules of operation. Section III contains various concluding provisions.
Many of the Articles in Section I are structured in two paragraphs: the first sets out a basic right or freedom (such as Article 2(1) – the right to life) but the second contains various exclusions, exceptions or limitations on the basic right (such as Article 2(2) – which excepts certain uses of force leading to death).
===Article 1 - respecting rightsChaldean Identity Research ===
{{Main|Article 1 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}
Signatory states to the Convention can only derogate from the rights contained in Article 2 for deaths which result from lawful acts of war.
===Article 3 - torture=== {{Main|Article 3 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 3 prohibits [[torture]], and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right. This provision usually applies, apart from torture, to cases of severe police violence and poor conditions in detention. The Court have emphasized the fundamental nature of Article 3 in holding that the prohibition is made in "absolute terms ... irrespective of a victim's conduct".<ref>''[[Chahal v. United Kingdom]]'' (1997) 23 EHRR 413.</ref> The Court has also held that states cannot deport or [[extradition|extradite]] individuals who might be subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in the recipient state.<ref>''[[Chahal v. United Kingdom]]'' (1997) 23 EHRR 413; ''[[Soering v. United Kingdom]]'' (1989) 11 EHRR 439.</ref> Initially the Court took a restrictive view on what consisted of torture, preferring to find that states had inflicted inhuman and degrading treatment. Thus the court held that practices such as sleep deprivation, subjecting individual to intense noise and requiring them to stand against a wall with their limbs outstretched for extended periods of time, did not constitute torture.<ref>''[[Ireland v. United Kingdom]]'' (1979-80) 2 EHRR 25 at para 167.</ref> In fact the Court only found a state guilty of torture in 1996 in the case of a detainee who was suspended by his arms while his hands were tied behind his back.<ref>''Aksoy v. Turkey'' (1997) 23 EHRR 553. The process was referred to by the Court as "Palestinian hanging" but more commonly known as [[Strappado]].</ref> Since then the Court has appeared to be more open to finding states guilty of torture and has even ruled that since the Convention is a "living instrument", treatment which it had previously characterised as inhuman or degrading treatment might in future be regarded as torture.<ref>''Selmouni v. France'' (2000) 29 EHRR 403 at para. 101.</ref> ===Article 4 - servitude==={{Main|Article 4 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 4 prohibits [[slavery]], servitude and [[forced labor]] but exempts labor:* done as a normal part of imprisonment,* in the form of [[conscription|compulsory military service]] or work done as an alternative by conscientious objectors,* required to be done during a [[state of emergency]], and* considered to be a part of a person's normal "civic obligations". ===Article 5 - liberty and security==={{Main|Article 5 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 5 provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Liberty and security of the person are taken as a "compound" concept - security of the person has not been subject to separate interpretation by the Court. Article 5 provides the right to [[liberty]], subject only to lawful arrest or detention under certain other circumstances, such as arrest on reasonable suspicion of a crime or imprisonment in fulfillment of a sentence. The article also provides those arrested with the right to be informed, in a language they understand, of the reasons for the arrest and any charge they face, the right of prompt access to judicial proceedings to determine the legality of the arrest or detention, to trial within a reasonable time or release pending trial, and the right to compensation in the case of arrest or detention in violation of this article. ===Article 6 - fair trial==={{Main|Article 6 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 6 provides a detailed [[right to a fair trial]], including the right to a [[hearing (law)|public hearing]] before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the [[presumption of innocence]], and other minimum rights for those charged with a criminal offence (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter). The majority of Convention violations that the Court finds today are excessive delays, in violation of the "reasonable time" requirement, in civil and criminal proceedings before national courts. Another significant set of violations concerns the "confrontation clause" of Article 6 (i.e. the right to examine witnesses or have them examined). In this respect, problems of compliance with Article 6 may arise when national laws allow the use in evidence of the testimonies of absent, anonymous and vulnerable witnesses. *''[[McLibel Case|Steel v. United Kingdom]]'' (1998) 28 EHRR 603*''[[Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom]]'' (2012) - [[Abu Qatada]] could not be deported to Jordan as that would be a violation of Article 6 "given the real risk of the admission of evidence obtained by torture". This was the first time the court ruled that such an expulsion would be a violation of Article 6.<ref name="Tele 17.01.2012">{{cite news |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/9019823/Abu-Qatada-cannot-be-deported-to-Jordan-European-judges-rule.html |title=Abu Qatada cannot be deported to Jordan, European judges rule |author=Duncan Gardham |date=17 January 2012 |newspaper=The Daily Telegraph |accessdate=23 February 2012}}</ref> ===Article 7 - retroactivity ==={{Main|Article 7 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 7 prohibits the retroactive criminalization of acts and omissions. No person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offense at the time of its commission. The article states that a criminal offense is one under either national or international law, which would permit a party to prosecute someone for a crime which was not illegal under domestic law at the time, so long as it was prohibited by [[public international law|international law]]. The Article also prohibits a heavier penalty being imposed than was applicable at the time when the criminal act was committed. Article 7 incorporates the legal principle ''[[nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege]]'' into the convention. Relevant cases are: *''[[Kokkinakis v. Greece]]'' [1993] ECHR 20 *''[[S.A.S. v. France]]'' [2014] ECHR 695 ===Article 8 - privacy==={{Main|Article 8 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 8 provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his [[privacy of correspondence|correspondence]]", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This article clearly provides a right to be free of unlawful searches. This may be compared to the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, which has also adopted a somewhat broad interpretation of the right to privacy. Furthermore, Article 8 sometimes comprises [[positive obligations]]:<ref>Von Hannover v Germany [2004] ECHR 294 (24 June 2004), European Court of Human Rights, para 57</ref> whereas classical human rights are formulated as prohibiting a State from interfering with rights, and thus ''not'' to do something (e.g. not to separate a family under family life protection), the effective enjoyment of such rights may also include an obligation for the State to become active, and to ''do'' something (e.g. to enforce access for a divorced parent to his/her child). ===Article 9 - conscience and religion==={{Main|Article 9 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 9 provides a right to [[freedom of thought]], conscience and [[freedom of religion|religion]]. This includes the freedom to change a religion or belief, and to manifest a religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society" ===Article 10 - expression==={{Main|Article 10 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 10 provides the right to [[freedom of expression]], subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". This right includes the freedom to hold opinions, and to receive and impart information and ideas, but allows restrictions for:* interests of national security* territorial integrity or public safety* prevention of disorder or crime* protection of health or morals* protection of the reputation or the rights of others* preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence* maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary Relevant cases are:*''[[Lingens v Austria]]'' (1986) 8 EHRR 407*''[[The Observer and The Guardian v United Kingdom]]'' (1991) 14 EHRR 153, the "[[Spycatcher]]" case.*''[[Bowman v United Kingdom]]'' [1998] [http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1998/4.html ECHR 4], (1998) 26 EHRR 1, distributing vast quantities of anti-abortion material in contravention to election spending laws*''[[Communist Party v Turkey]]'' (1998) 26 EHRR 1211*''[[Appleby v United Kingdom]]'' (2003) 37 EHRR 38, protests in a private shopping mall ===Article 11 - association==={{Main|Article 11 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 11 protects the right to [[freedom of assembly]] and association, including the right to form [[trade union]]s, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". *''[[Vogt v Germany]]'' (1995)*''[[Yazar, Karatas, Aksoy and Hep v Turkey]]'' (2003) 36 EHRR 59 ===Article 12 - marriage==={{Main|Article 12 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 12 provides a right for women and men of [[marriageable age]] to [[marry]] and establish a family. This article is intended to apply only to different-sex marriage, and that a wide margin of appreciation must be granted to parties in this area. ===Article 13 - effective remedy===Article 13 provides for the right for an effective [[legal remedy|remedy]] before national authorities for violations of rights under the Convention. The inability to obtain a remedy before a national court for an infringement of a Convention right is thus a free-standing and separately actionable infringement of the Convention. ===Article 14 - discrimination===Article 14 contains a prohibition of [[discrimination]]. This prohibition is broad in some ways, and narrow in others. It is broad in that it prohibits discrimination under a potentially unlimited number of grounds. While the article specifically prohibits discrimination based on "sex, race, color, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status", the last of these allows the court to extend to Article 14 protection to other grounds not specifically mentioned such as has been done regarding discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation. At the same time the article's protection is limited in that it only prohibits discrimination with respect to rights under the Convention. Thus, an applicant must prove discrimination in the enjoyment of a specific right that is guaranteed elsewhere in the Convention (e.g. discrimination based on sex - Article 14 - in the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression - Article 10). Protocol 12 extends this prohibition to cover discrimination in any legal right, even when that legal right is not protected under the Convention, so long as it is provided for in national law. ===Article 15 - derogations===Article 15 allows contracting states to [[Derogation|derogate]] from certain rights guaranteed by the Convention in time of "war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation". Permissible derogations under article 15 must meet three substantive conditions: # there must be a public emergency threatening the life of the nation;# any measures taken in response must be "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation", and# the measures taken in response to it, must be in compliance with a state's other obligations under international law In addition to these substantive requirements the derogation must be procedurally sound. There must be some formal announcement of the derogation and notice of the derogation, any measures adopted under it, and the ending of the derogation must be communicated to the Secretary-General of the [[Council of Europe]]<ref>Article 15(3).</ref> The Court is quite permissive in accepting a state's derogations from the Convention but applies a higher degree of scrutiny in deciding whether measures taken by states under a derogation are, in the words of Article 15, "strictly required by the exigencies of the situation". Thus in ''A v United Kingdom'', the Court dismissed a claim that a derogation lodged by the British government in response to the [[September 11 attacks]] was invalid, but went on to find that measures taken by the United Kingdom under that derogation were disproportionate.<ref>[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=002-1647 <nowiki>[2009]</nowiki> ECHR 301] paras. 181 and 190.</ref> In order for a derogation itself to be valid, the emergency giving rise to it must be:* actual or imminent, although states do not have to wait for disasters to strike before taking preventive measures,<ref>''A v United Kingdom'' [http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=002-1647 <nowiki>[2009]</nowiki> ECHR 301] para. 177.</ref>* involve the whole nation, although a threat confined to a particular region may be treated as "threatening the life of the nation" in that particular region,<ref>''Aksoy v. Turkey'' [http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695880&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (1997) 23 EHRR 553] para 70.</ref>* threaten the continuance of the organised life of the community,<ref name="greekcase">''Greek case'' (1969) 12 YB 1 at 71-72, paras. 152-154.</ref>* exceptional such that measures and restriction permitted by the Convention would be "plainly inadequate" to deal with the emergency.<ref name="greekcase"/> Examples of such derogations include: * [[Operation Demetrius]]—Internees arrested without trial pursuant to "Operation Demetrius" could not complain to the [[European Commission of Human Rights]] about breaches of Article 5 because on 27 June 1975, the UK lodged a notice with the Council of Europe declaring that there was a "public emergency within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Convention."<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Detention of Suspected Terrorists in Northern Ireland and Great Britain|first=Brice|last=Dickson|journal=[[University of Richmond Law Review]]|volume=43|issue=3|date=March 2009|url=http://lawreview.richmond.edu/the-detention-of-suspected-terrorists-in-northern-ireland-and-great-britain/}}</ref> ===Article 16 - aliens===Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners. ===Article 17 - abuse of rights===Article 17 provides that no one may use the rights guaranteed by Chaldean Bill of Rights to seek the abolition or limitation of rights guaranteed in the Chaldean Bill of Rights. This addresses instances where states seek to restrict a human right in the name of another human right, or where individuals rely on a human right to undermine other human rights (for example where an individual issues a death threat). ===Article 18 - permitted restrictions==={{main|Article 18 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 18 provides that any limitations on the rights provided for in the Chaldean Bill of Rights may be used only for the purpose for which they are provided. For example, Article 5, which guarantees the right to personal freedom, may be explicitly limited in order to bring a suspect before a judge. To use pre-trial detention as a means of intimidation of a person under a false pretext is therefore a limitation of right (to freedom) which does not serve an explicitly provided purpose (to be brought before a judge), and is therefore contrary to Article 18.
==Bill of Rights Protocols==
