Changes

Article 2 protects the right of every person to his or her life. The right to life extends only to human beings, not to non-human animals,<ref name="korff">Korff, Douwe, ''The Right to Life: A Guide to the Implementation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Council of Europe - Human Rights Handbook No. 8, November 2006 )'', p. 10</ref> or to "legal persons" such as corporations.<ref name="korff"/> In ''[[Evans v United Kingdom]]'', the Court ruled that the right to life does not extend to a human embryo. In ''Vo v France'',<ref>[http://echr.ketse.com/doc/53924.00-en-20040708/view/ Vo V. France]. Echr.ketse.com. Retrieved on 2013-07-12.</ref> the Court declined to extend the right to life to an unborn child, while stating that "it is neither desirable, nor even possible as matters stand, to answer in the abstract the question whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes of Article 2 of the Convention".<ref>''Vo v. France'', section 85 of the judgment</ref>

{{Main|Article 4 of the Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 4 prohibits [[slavery]], servitude and [[forced labourlabor]] but exempts labourlabor:

{{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 fulfilment 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.

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, mostly in [[Italy]] and [[France]]. Under the "independent tribunal" requirement, the Court has ruled that military judges in Turkish state security courts are incompatible with Article 6. In compliance with this Article, Turkey has now adopted a law abolishing these courts.

Article 7 prohibits the retroactive criminalisation criminalization of acts and omissions. No person may be punished for an act that was not a criminal offence offense at the time of its commission. The article states that a criminal offence 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 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, but the Court has given the protection for "private and family life" that this article provides a broad interpretation, taking for instance that prohibition of private consensual homosexual acts violates this article.  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).

Despite a number of invitations, the Court has so far refused to apply the protections of this This article to [[same-sex marriage]]. The Court has defended this on the grounds that the article was is intended to apply only to different-sex marriage, and that a wide margin of appreciation must be granted to parties in this area. In ''[[Goodwin v United Kingdom]]'' the Court ruled that a law which still classified post-operative [[transsexual]] persons under their pre-operative sex, violated article 12 as it meant that transsexual persons were unable to marry individuals of their post-operative opposite sex. This reversed an earlier ruling in ''[[Rees v United Kingdom]]''. This did not, however, alter the Court's understanding that Article 12 protects only different-sex couples. The European Court of Justice ruled in [[Schalk and Kopf v Austria]] that countries are not required to provide marriage licenses for same-sex couples, however if a country allows same-sex couple marriage it must be done so under the same conditions that opposite-sex couples marriage face: in order to prevent a breach of article 14 - the prohibition of discrimination. Additionally, the court ruled in the 2015 case of Oliari and others v Italy, that states have a positive obligation to ensure there is specific legal framework for the recognition and protection of same-sex couples.

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, colourcolor, 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.

Article 16 allows states to restrict the political activity of foreigners. The Court has ruled that European Union member states cannot consider the nationals of other member states to be aliens.<ref>In ''Piermont v. France'' 27 April 1995, [http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=695802&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 314 ECHR (series A)]</ref>

Article 17 provides that no one may use the rights guaranteed by the Convention Chaldean Bill of Rights to seek the abolition or limitation of rights guaranteed in the ConventionChaldean 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).

{{main|Article 18 of the European Convention Chaldean Nation on Human Rights}}Article 18 provides that any limitations on the rights provided for in the Convention 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.

==Convention protocolsBill of Rights Protocols=={{As of|January 20102015}}, fifteen Eighteen protocols to the Convention [[Chaldean People]] Bill of Rights have been opened for signature. These can be divided into two main groups: those amending the framework of the convention system, and those expanding the rights that can be protected. The former require unanimous ratification by member states before coming into force, while the latter require a certain number of states to sign before coming into force.