"ISLAND MENTALITY" OR "DEFECTIVE MORAL COMPASS?"

The Palace of Human Rights is located in an Art Nouveau building in the green area of one of the most beautiful European cities. Of course, the historical capital of Alsace was not chosen by chance as the venue for the international court and as the "parliamentary capital of Europe". After being a constant point of contention for many centuries, Strasbourg finally became a symbol of reconciliation between France and Germany - the countries that are considered the founders of the European Union. But is the whole world ready to follow suit and are the disparate countries belonging to the Council of Europe and the EU willing to unquestioningly follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)?

Recently, the ECHR considered the claim of three British prisoners serving a life sentence for murder and resolved with 16 votes out of the 17 that the sentence of life imprisonment without the right to parole violates the rights of prisoners.

The fact is that in 2003 London abolished the provision on the possible revision of a life sentence after 25 years. A quarter of a century is the maximum penalty for the most violent and perverse murders in many European countries. Notorious Anders Breivik, who killed 77 people, should stay in prison a little over 20 years. This period may be extended only if Breivik is recognized as dangerous to society. It is absolutely unclear what will make him no longer dangerous to other people after 20 years.

The British government said that it will not revise the sentences of 49 criminals who have committed similar brutal murders. However, Strasbourg judges consider this very British tradition to be inhumane.

The decision of the European Court will be sent to the government of the United Kingdom in the near future. Under international law, Britain has no right to appeal. Within six months, London has to answer through the Ministry of Justice.

The British government did not look for particularly gentlemanly phrases to express its outrage. Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling said that the authors of the European Convention on Human Rights probably "turned over in their graves" and some colleagues began talking about the "defective moral compass". According to Grayling, "it will be difficult for the people of Britain to understand a positive ruling on the murderers' appeal" and, thus, the ECHR's decision reinforces the "focus on reducing the role of the Strasbourg court". Home Secretary Theresa May was dejected by the verdict and stated that she was surprised at the decision because last year the court upheld the extradition of several suspects who were threatened with a life sentence without parole. Prime Minister David Cameron went even further, threatening that the UK may withdraw from the jurisdiction of the ECHR if the Conservative Party wins the parliamentary elections in 2015. If Britain decides to withdraw from the system of the ECHR, it will have to denounce the Convention and to leave the Council of Europe.

Rather, as many observers expect, it's just election rhetoric. In any case, we should not forget that the authorities of the Foggy Albion have long been irritated with the European institutions up to the European Union. In the UK, the proportion of eurosceptics is relatively high - the people of this country believe that belonging to a united Europe hits British traditions, values and way of life.

In this sense, the concept of human rights, which, as they think, are universal in nature and which, as declared, equally apply to all people regardless of race, sex, religion, political convictions, national or social origin, etc., is an interesting indicator. For example, the ECHR was largely conceived as a mechanism for seeking justice if you fail to achieve it in the country of which you are a citizen.

Human rights have long been recognized as a global phenomenon, and one way or another, they are the focus of international attention. For example, for membership in certain international and regional organizations and for the right to buy weapons, one must have a good reputation, including in the field of human rights. It is one of the main criteria for accession to the EU. In practice, this rule is reflected in the fact that international standards of human rights have only one way of implementation - at the national level. That's why decisions in this area are often in conflict with the existing national law and the provisions of national constitutions. The very idea of human rights always encounters the question of national sovereignty, which is also the foundation and pillar of international relations.

Within its own borders, the state itself establishes laws and mechanisms for their implementation. States do not obey one another, but seem to respect the norms of international law. The principle of sovereignty is a kind of sacred law, which can be broken only in extreme cases such as proven acts of genocide. In the past, the idea of national sovereignty pushed humanity forward - under this banner people fought for the abolition of slavery, against colonialism and overthrew empires. It was believed that different and more humane times came after the Second World War. There appeared the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which defines all the basic principles and conditions necessary for each of us to continue to feel human - from the right to life to the right to social security. And here comes the "cold war". Humanity obstinately came up with various declarations on human rights, but in fact continued to stew in the same sauce called Realpolitik, when there are "no friends, but only national interests". That's right - the state is obliged to ensure the security of its citizens. And this is what Britain, not wanting to free serial killers and maniacs, is actually doing.

By the way, here is another example from the British reality from which the British began to be irritated by the court in Strasbourg. Despite the fact that the European Court of Human Rights actually tried to prohibit extradition, Islamic preacher of Palestinian-Jordanian origin Abu Qatada was expelled to Jordan from the UK. In Jordan, Abu Qatada, who never pleaded guilty, was facing a life sentence. London and Amman agreed that the case of Abu Qatada will not be revised despite the fact that some of the evidence could have been obtained under torture. At the end of the "epic", British Prime Minister David Cameron said that he was "absolutely delighted" about the deportation of Abu Qatada. The British believed that the preacher poses a danger to their country, and in this situation, the rights of Qatada himself are not that important, especially as he cost the British treasury millions of pounds.

London, by the way, is not alone in this sense. Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev once said that "in deciding how far the competence of the European or other international courts can extend, one must proceed from the fact that while signing the relevant agreements Russia never handed over the part of its sovereignty that would allow a foreign court to issue rulings that change Russian laws". Moscow repeats these words with regard to almost any ECHR decision that is not in its favour, which happens quite often. In the United States, which is outside of Europe, but positions itself as the world leader in the fight for human rights, many states not only use life sentences, but also have the death penalty...

It turns out that human rights are important only as long as they do not affect national interests. That is to say human rights either fit into the strategy of promoting national interests or prevent it, and depending on it, the attitude to the idea of human rights also changes.

Needless to say, the British created a riddle for the whole of Europe with their "island mentality". If London withdraws from the jurisdiction of the ECHR, it will be a very undesirable precedent - a precedent that is very painful for the reputation of all human rights institutions. It would seem that a solution can be found in calls for the modernization of the existing system of the Strasbourg Court. According to Grayling, times have changed, it's not the way it was 50 years ago and "law enforcement in this area has reached the point of casuistry". London has already unsuccessfully suggested that the national courts of the EU should be given more rights in the interpretation of the Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps this scenario did not, and will not, take root because it entails the revision of many mechanisms, rules and regulations, which have long become established and which are convenient to use when necessary.