本篇美国硕士论文代写-欧洲人权和义务法庭讲了2002年，ICHR进一步发现，各州有必要致力于统一标准，确保他们履行积极的义务，颁布刑法，以打击强奸和暴力问题。非经双方同意的性行为或强奸必须被定为犯罪。法院期望人们在诉讼中采用这种定罪的态度，并在以强奸形式发生的许多侵犯人权行为的情况下，将这种态度作为法律加以证明。这种做法清楚地反映在法院在Bevacqua和S. v.保加利亚和Opuz诉土耳其案件中的工作。本篇美国硕士论文代写文章由美国第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
European Court of Human Rights and Obligations
In 2002, the ICHR furthermore found that it was necessary for the states to work on converging standards and ensure that they fulfill their positive obligation to enact criminal laws in order to battle against rape and violence issues. Non-consensual sex or rape had to be criminalized. The court expected people to apply such a criminalizing attitude in proceedings and also document them as law in the context of the many breaches of human rights that was happening in the form of rapes. This practice is reflected clearly in the working of the court in Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria and Opuz v. Turkey cases.
In order to show due diligence, the ECHR furthermore went on to ask states to adopt frameworks that would help them show compliance as well as combat the issues of rape and sexual violence. In this context, it is presented that states of the EU, which is inclusive of UK at that time, should have adopted the language and principles of the DEVAW, CEDAW, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc, so as to fully implement a framework for working on these issues. Member states were recommended to adopt some specific measures, legal phrases and clauses and make necessary provisions that would proactively stop such rape and sexual violence instigations from happening. In addition to public education, media reformation and more was suggested. The framework furthermore was to be supported by a well-trained staff of law enforcement. These trained and dedicated officers were to provide around the clock protection to people. From receiving an initial complaint to assuring complete security for the person requesting help, the nation is obligated to render assistance. It is considered a matter of obligation and duty for a nation to work on arranging the necessary measures for victim relief and proactive identification. Where necessary, it was also expected that it was not just the court that could seek relief in proceedings for a victim, but the victim themselves must be able to initiate such proceedings as well.
Finally, the ECHR goes on to present the penalties that would be imposed on nations that do not comply with the standards. With the cases of Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria and Opuz v. Turkey being turning points in legislation, the court has understood states to follow the desired minimums that are set in those two cases. Where nations are not able to present justification for following the needed minimum or do not have the mechanism for actually helping in protection measures, then it would follow that the court will recognize such a nation as following a discrimination policy. Acting upon matters of violence against women or issues of rape is no longer considered as just protection extension to women, and they are considered as discrimination of women. Both civil and criminal considerations hence will come up to the debate when such due diligence is not followed.