Article 10 was alleged by the applicants as a ground for their action, as a matter of course, in view of the fact that the target of the attack was a media entity. Article 10 lays down the dictum that every person is entitled to the freedom to express or to speak out his mind albeit the same may be restrained according to the limitations which statutes of the Contracting States prescribe. Lastly, Article 13 of the Convention mandates that those whose rights and liberties are violated or encroached upon under the provisions of the Convention must be afforded an effective remedy or relief even if the perpetrators have acted in official capacity. (European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. COUNCIL OF EUROPE. European Treaties. Press for Change [internet]).
The focal issue in this discussion is the statement of the Court which declares that it is the obligation of the Court to consider the special character of the Convention pertaining to its role in the maintenance of European public order for the purpose of protecting persons or individuals. It also points out that the Convention has been covenanted to ensure that the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties, meaning the treaty signatories, are observed. The latter principle is evident in the setting up of the European Commission of Human Rights and of the Court, both specified in Article 19 of the Convention. Since the principal matter which was resolved by the Court refers to the admissibility of the application, the arguments and debate presented in this treatise will center on that question. Some comments and opinions from literary sources will be considered for inclusion here.
It is necessary to have knowledge of the history of the Convention in assessing the case...
With all the foregoing backdrops, this essay will proceed to the questions of who are the people covered by the Convention and what cases does it cover. It will finally likewise be queried as to when the Convention applies. In short, there is a need to know what circumstances are embraced under the operation of the Convention. In the legal sense, the inquiry has to be directed into the jurisdiction of the Court which the Convention had created. Stated in another way, it has to be determined when, where and over whom does the Court exercise its judicial powers under the Convention in conjunction with the rules and principles of international law. Article 1 of the Convention is very specific. It provides that the signatories to the treaty are under obligation to secure to all the people within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms enumerated in Section 1 of the Convention. Were the applicants covered as persons within the jurisdiction of the High Contracting Parties when the bombardment of the radio-television network was carried out? The answer is definitely in the negative. They were not. During the time of the bombing of the Radio-Television Serbia headquarters, Banković and his co-applicants and their deceased relatives, Serbia was not a member of the Convention and, therefore, they were not within the reach of jurisdiction of the Court. The bombing party, NATO, was also found by the Court as not having Serbia within its (NATO’s) effective control or that of its members.