Celebrating 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights

Today, we celebrate 75 years of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Brought into being after the horrors of the Second World War and the Holocaust, and following in the footsteps of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the drafting of the ECHR was led by British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, drawing on his experience as a prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials.

The ECHR remains a cornerstone for the rule of law, for upholding human dignity, and is a vital instrument for ordinary people across Europe, including those of us in the UK, to protect our fundamental rights and freedoms. But what is the ECHR and how does it remain relevant to us today?

What is the ECHR?

The ECHR is an agreement between countries that they will uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms of their citizens and the people in their territory. These include the rights to life, to a fair trial, to freedom of expression, and to freedom from torture. They also include freedom of religion or belief, which has guaranteed vital protections in law for humanists. These are not privileges. Human rights are the minimum standard by which we can be expected to live, and protect ordinary individuals against an overbearing state.

The ECHR is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, where individuals from the UK can appeal when they believe their rights have been violated, and they have exhausted all other legal avenues at home. Over the years, people in the UK have used the European Court to challenge injustices and inequalities. Cases have led to the end of the ban on gay people serving in the armed forces, and to prevent teachers from hitting children. The ECHR has been used to protect victims of domestic violence and of child abuse. In short, the ECHR has helped shape a fairer society that humanists strive for.

How is the ECHR related to the Human Rights Act?

Since 1998, the Human Rights Act (HRA) has brought the rights and freedoms of the ECHR into UK law. This means that individuals can defend their rights directly in UK courts, and public authorities must act in ways that respect those rights, without needing to take a costly and time-consuming case to Strasbourg. The European Court, however, remains an essential safety net for the UK public to protect their rights, should they need it.

Section 2 of the HRA states that UK courts ‘must take into account’ judgments of the Strasbourg court, but they are not necessarily bound by those judgments. This means that the UK courts retain their independence when balancing human rights cases in a UK context with broader jurisprudence under the ECHR. Through section 2, claimants are more likely to receive the same outcome in a UK court as they would do at the European Court. As a result, fewer claimants need to take their cases to Strasbourg. This ability to claim their rights on home turf avoids the potential cost and time of litigation for both the individual and the UK Government.

How is the ECHR still relevant today?

Dynamic interpretation of the ECHR is crucial for its legitimacy. As a ‘living instrument’, the ECHR can and should be interpreted in line with constant changes in the circumstances of human life which could not reasonably be foreseen by the original drafters. For example, references to homosexuality are entirely absent from the ECHR. Yet in 1981, the European Court dynamically interpreted article 8 (the right to respect for a private and family life) to find a breach in the continued criminalisation of ’acts of gross indecency’ in private between consenting men in Northern Ireland. That decision is indisputable and shows how the living instrument doctrine was crucial for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland. However, Strasbourg’s outdated finding in that same case that the age of consent for male homosexual relations need not be the same as heterosexual and female homosexual relations is further evidence of the necessity for human rights instruments to be interpreted dynamically.

What does the human rights framework mean for humanists?

As humanists, we want to see a fair, equal society where rational thinking and kindness prevail. We believe in freedom of choice and shape our own lives in the here and now, because we believe it’s the only life we have. This is why Humanists UK seeks to influence public debate and policy in support of human rights, democracy, and equal dignity and treatment of everyone – including those with whom we disagree. We believe that governments have a duty to guarantee and respect the human rights of citizens, and base their decisions on evidence, empathy, and compassion. The rights laid out in the ECHR and HRA represent shared values rooted in our common humanity and our shared human needs that transcend cultural and religious traditions.

Specifically for humanists, the HRA has paved the way for legal recognition of humanist marriages in Scotland and Northern Ireland, for teaching about humanism alongside religions in schools in England and Wales, and to address unequal provision of care and support for non-religious patients across the UK. Losing our human rights framework would present a significant setback for secularism in the UK, as in many cases it would leave non-religious people without a legal mechanism for challenging discriminatory treatment or government bias in favour of religions.

Why is our membership to the ECHR under threat?

It’s alarming to see the number of attacks on the ECHR in recent months. Last week, Reform Leader Nigel Farage tried to introduce a private member’s bill (PMB) to withdraw from the ECHR, after he announced that his party would withdraw from the ECHR and as well as several international human rights agreements if it wins the next election. Fortunately, the PMB was voted down by MPs. However, Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch also committed to withdrawing from the ECHR and Labour is currently considering how Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) are interpreted in relation to asylum cases.

A recent report by the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights shows that media coverage and political commentary on deportation cases are often misleading by mischaracterising UK immigration law, the appeals system and the role played by the ECHR and European Court in such cases. There is a disproportionate focus on a relatively small number of asylum cases which misrepresents just how exceptional successful claims before the ECHR actually are. In fact, since 1980, there have only been 13 extradition or deportation cases where the European Court found the UK in violation of the ECHR, and only 4 of them were based on Article 8. Similarly, the Good Law Project found that successful immigration claims under the Human Rights Act are extremely rare – only 0.4% of migrants to the UK in 2024 successfully relied on the Human Rights Act. It is therefore clear that neither dismantling the HRA nor withdrawing from the ECHR are the tools by which to address the concerns of some about migration.

The Bonavero Institute’s report concludes that misreporting, and inaccurate or incomplete information is undermining public confidence in the legal system and legal processes. This in turn can lead to an erosion of trust in the rule of law. As humanists, we must resist this false narrative and ask: what would happen to ordinary people if protections of the ECHR were removed by the very people in power we are supposed to be protected from?