HOW HAS COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS AFFECTED HUMAN RIGHTS

As human beings we inherently have rights, regardless of ethnicity, race, religion, class or sex. We are all entitled to human rights, without any sort of discrimination. In the U.K., we have the ECHR, which is the European Conventions of Human Rights. The ECHR is set in place to protect the human rights of people in countries that belong to the Council of Europe. The ECHR was developed to ensure that governments would never again be allowed to dehumanise and abuse people’s rights.

Some of the articles of the ECHR are as follows:

Article 5- Right to liberty and security;

Article 6- Right to a fair trial;

Article 7- No punishment without the law;

Article 8- Right to respect privacy and family life.

Due to recent events, and the spread of the coronavirus otherwise known as Covid-19, the world is suffering a global pandemic which is affecting not only our health but other areas of our lives. Human rights have also changed, particularly those provided in Articles 5 and 8 of the ECHR.

Article 5 of the ECHR allows the right to liberty and security. We have the right to personal freedom; thus, it means that you must not be detained or imprisoned without good reason. During the summer and spiring time, many enjoy a day out to the beach with family or to go out and have a nice picnic with friends. However, as a result of lockdowns, these seasonal outings were restricted and prohibited. If you were not on the beach or the park for your daily exercise, you were penalised and some given a fine. We have a right to liberty and to have personal freedom. Being forced to stay inside your house and only being permitted to go outside for necessity seems like an infringement of human rights. However, as we dwell deeper into the article, it is highlighted that as long as there is a good reason, it is lawful to be detained and this includes house lockdown.

As we look down the different articles of the ECHR, we can examine Article 15, which is very relevant to this situation. Article 15 is derogation in time of emergency. This article basically contains the exception portion which provides that a state can choose to ignore some specific rights shown in the ECHR at a time of war or other emergencies threatening the life of the nation.

On 7th April 2020 the Council of Europe (CoE) published, “Respecting democracy, rule of law and human rights in the framework of the Covid-19 sanitary crisis; a toolkit for member states.” Within this article, the council recognised the unprecedented challenges that follow with the pandemic, highlighting that regular functioning of society is difficult to maintain. These measures “will encroach on rights and freedoms which are integral and necessary part of democratic society governed by the rule of law.” [1]

By preventing people from going outside and only permitting necessary travels, it ensures the safety of the nation from the virus, so by temporarily removing Article 5, the act was lawful and necessary

We can also look at Article 8 of the ECHR- right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. During the lockdown, many people were unable to see their loved ones and family members. By taking away the right to see family and only being able to commune with members of your household seems to infringe on your rights. In a situation where a child of divorced parents lived with one parent and visits another- the lockdown meant they were unable to visit one of their parents. Consequently, depriving that child of one of their parents and family life. As we already established with Article 15, certain rights in a case of emergency will be temporarily taken away for the collective good. In addition to this, within the article is an exception, public authorities can interfere with Article 8 where authorities can show that the action is necessarily proportionate in line to protect public safety and to protect health or morals.

In paragraph 2 of Article 8, there is a test for necessity to legitimise the notion and the need to prove that the interference is 1) corresponding to a pressing need and 2) proportionate to the aim pursued. As we analyse the situation, increased gatherings and mingling increases the chances for the virus to spread and infect. The World Health Organisation (WHO) in march issued a statement that the virus is a global pandemic, meaning that the issue was a pressing need. The fact that, increasing exposure and seeing other people also amplified the chances of infection, meant that declaration of lockdowns were necessary and proportionate in slowing down the spread. Consequently, temporarily restricting the provisions of Article 8 right to respect private family life, home and correspondence were lawful and obligatory.

To conclude, in light of current events of which this pandemic forms a major part of lives, our rights have temporarily changed, they adapted and some suspended, for the collective good of the society. The restrictions are there to ensure that everyone’s safety and health are prioritised.

- Christine Goco

References:

(Practical Law Public Sector, Covid-19: Council of Europe publishes analysis of ECHR), Thomas Reuters [21/04/2020] https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-025-0798?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true