Understanding the European Convention on Human Rights Article “8” (Essay Sample)

Following are the precise stated question of law relevant in the given situations:
1 Henry is about to face deportation from UK but he have a little daughter with whom he is recreating healthy relationship. Deportation is an alarming and destructive situation for not only to Henry’s personal life but also to his daughter.
2 In case of Matilda, she would suffer irreparable loss and can be targeted for her political activities in case of deportation to her hometown from UK.
3 Rupert was not protected and covered by the Government as officials have good knowledge of the fact that his life is at stake. Relevant information and cause of his death is intentionally hided by the authoritative.
In the above-mentioned situations, following articles of the ECHR applies respectively which are elaborated afterwards:
1 Article “8” of ECHR Rights states respect for family life.[European Convention on Human Rights Article 8https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf Accessed 28 December 2020]
2 Article “3” of ECHR prohibiting torture and inhuman behaviour.[European Convention on Human Rights Article 3https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf Accessed 28 December 2020]
3 Article “2” ECHR related to the right to life.[European Convention on Human Rights Article 2https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf Accessed 28 December 2020]
Under European Convention on Human Rights Article “8” deals with the preservation of family life which is not only confined to the matrimonial relationships but also obscure the family ties where parents are not living together. The common belief is that a family facilitates the healthy development of the child. Henry can claim right over the preservation of family life under Article 8 that in case of deportation from country his family life will deteriorate and wherever the existence of family tie with a child is in question, the state must act in a manner intended to enable that tie with child and legal safeguards must be established for the child’s integration in his family. In another case, it was viewed by One of the panel judge that,[Kroon and Others v. the Netherlands [1994]]
“The expulsion to a country where the deportee has risk of having to live in almost social isolation and constitutes interference with his right to privacy of private and family life. Expulsion severs irrevocably all social ties between the deportee and the community he is living in and the totality of those ties may be said to be part of the concept of private life”.[Beldjoudi v. France, 55/1990/246/317; 12083/86, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 26 February 1992, available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECHR,4029f4bc4.html Accessed 28 December 2020]
In another reported Judgment it was decided that,
“if the period of cohabitation was in itself relatively short, we consider that the applicants had acted as parents towards the child and conclude that there existed, in the particular circumstances of the present case, a de facto family life between the applicants and the child”[Paradiso and Campanelli V. Italy [2017] http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-170359 Accessed 28 December 2020]
The Second question of law related to Matilda, is co related to the “3” of ECHR which states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
This article has been used by foreigners convicted for a broad range of offences to avoid deportation from the UK and it is used as a magic article to avoid deportation. But the courts has developed a strict criteria and a list of circumstances which should be assessed by the courts regarding the decision that whether or not the right to a private and family life of a foreign criminal has been violated by a deportation order issued against him.
In many of the judgments reported it was held that if the deportee is going to face illegal or inhuman treatment on arrival then the orders of his deportation will not be given. Likewise it is reported in a case as,
“It held that while the general situation in Iraq was insecure and problematic, it was not so serious as to cause, by itself, a violation of Article 3 if the applicant were to be returned there”[Chamber judgment F.H. v. Sweden 20.01.09 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-2610967-2839343%22]} Accessed 28 December 2020]
In another case it was held that,
“Having regard to the fact that Article 3 enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society and prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, a rigorous scrutiny must necessarily be conducted of an individual’s claim that his or her deportation to a third country will expose that individual to treatment prohibited by Article 3”
Matilda have a right under the European convention of Human Rights to claim asylum in the respective country and to hold a governmental protection that she will not be deported by the state due to the life threatening situation. Article 8 exhibits a balance between the right of every individual to personal and family life and the right of state to prevent crime and protect public order.
The third question related to Rupert, which is in nexus with Article 2 and 8 of European Convention of Human Rights, which states that, “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”.
The article has been used for the protection of everyone’s life, Right to life is a basic and core principle of universal right. It prevails in every situation, with the context of Article 2 of European Convention of Human Rights. This article highlights the rights of those who are under the execution of the court and accused of any offence. It is general protection which is awarded by everyone with the attribute of being human, irrespective of other secondary attributes like, race, religion and colour. Article 2 protects the life of every individual whether they are free, in custody or accused. The government should protect them if they are aware of any danger towards their life. And in this situation Rupert inform the government officials but them reluctant to pay heed on the information of him. In result of this negligence the Rupert lost his life.
Whereas, it is an obligation on the state to protect the person's life not to put them in danger. The state must provide all the measures for saving the life of the individual.[Makaratzis v. Greece, 50385/99 Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 26 February 199