The actions of Finland weakens the confidence of the  European Court of Human Rights.

Free release

It appears that the new judge elect, Ms Päivi Hirvelä, representing Finland in the Court of Human Rights (starting January 1:st 2007) has in her CV written things that are not consistent with facts that can be obtained from her official public workinghistory recieved from The Office of the Prosecutor General.

In her CV dated 21.2.2006 that she has written when applying for the office she states that she has been a judge for 9 years. In reality there are two occasions when she has been a district judge for a total of 1 year and 7 months + several temporary duties as judge lasting from 1 day to 21 days, a total of some 209 days. This adds upp to 2 years and 2 months at the most. She claimes that she has been an assistant judge for 8 years but that job was merely the job of a reporting member, a referendary, someone that is presenting the case to the court,  not a judge.

The way she was elected as a candidate for the office did not (as usual) fulfill the legal requirements even under Finnish law let alone the requirements of the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg that made the final election.                

"

2. In order for the European Court of Human Rights to continue to inspire confidence, it is vital that the process by which judges are selected and appointed also inspire confidence.

3. The Parliamentary Assembly insists that the process of appointment must reflect the principles of democratic procedure, the rule of law, non-discrimination, accountability and transparency.  "

The way she was appointed candidate by the Minister for Foreign affairs after a non-public meeting out of 8 other applicants does not fulfill the principles above. Among others the Presidents of the two Supreme courts and  the Chancellor of Justice were telephoned in to form an election panel and hold a meeting.  

For an observer who is familiar with the "justice" system of Finland it is quite apparent that this election panel would recommend someone "suitable" for the post. Minor inconsistencies in the CV can easily be overseen. What can be better than to be able to recommend someone suitable as the judge that is handling complaints against yourself in Strasbourg?

In Finland it is common knowledge that the goal of Finland is to elect someone not so very competent to Strasbourg because the main objective is only to sort out cases that would cost Finland most and only let through cases where Finland only has to pay some 3000 euros.

This is an insult towards the some 800 million people from the 46 European countries that seek justice from the European Court of Human Rights and reflects the attitude of the Finnish Government towards the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The press in Finland is not writing about these things because like in Russia you cannot write anything negative about the ministers or the administration.

Copyright © Hannu Kukkonen
 Update;         16-07-2007 19:00