Results found: 2

Search results

Sort By:

Limit search:

The supreme court of Canada and the offender’s right to be transferred to serve his sentence in Canada: interpreting the international transfer of offenders act in light of Canada’s national and international human rights obligations

100%

Mujuzi J. D.

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

2013

vol. 6

issue 2

102-123

In September 2013 in the case of Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness) the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the issue of whether section 6(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Charter, which grants Canadians the right to enter Canada was violated in a case where the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness declined to consent to the transfer of a Canadian citizen to serve his sentence in Canada where the sentencing state had consented to the transfer. Another issue was whether sections 8(1) and 10(1)(a) and 10(2)(a) of the International Transfer of Offenders Act, which granted the Minister the discretion to consent or not to consent to the transfer, were contrary to section 6(1) of the Charter. In resolving the above issues, the Court referred to its earlier jurisprudence, academic publications and international law. Although the Court agreed with the government that the appeal was moot because the appellant had left the USA by the time it was heard, it held that it retained “a residual discretion to decide the merits of a moot appeal if the issues raised are of public importance” and that this case was one of public importance because “[t]he issues are likely to recur in the future and there is some uncertainty resulting from conflicting decisions in the Federal Court.” The purpose of this article is to highlight the interpretative tools invoked by the court and the implications of the judgement.

A Prisoner’s Right to be Released or Placed on Parole: A Comment onÖcalan v Turkey (No. 2)(18 March 2014)

100%

Mujuzi J. D.

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

2016

vol. 9

issue 1

69-92

The European Convention on Human Rights does not provide for a prisoner’s right to parole and no international or regional human rights instrument provides for this right. However, recently, in the case of Öcalan v Turkey (No. 2), one of the judges of the European Court of Human Rights interpreted the European Convention on Human Rights as providing for a prisoner’s right to parole. This is the first time that a judge of this court, and to the author’s best knowledge, a judge of a regional or international court, has expressly held that a prisoner has the right to parole. The author assesses this holding in the light of the jurisprudence or practice on the right to parole from the Human Rights Committee, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. In order to put the discussion in context, the author also highlights jurisprudence emanating from the European Court of Human Rights relevant to the relationship between parole and other human rights. The author recommends that the time has come for the right to parole to be recognised in human rights instruments.

Refine search results

2 Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

2 Mujuzi J. D.

1 2016

1 2013

Search results

The supreme court of Canada and the offender’s right to be transferred to serve his sentence in Canada: interpreting the international transfer of offenders act in light of Canada’s national and international human rights obligations

A Prisoner’s Right to be Released or Placed on Parole: A Comment onÖcalan v Turkey (No. 2)(18 March 2014)