Inconsistent Deliberations or Deliberate Inconsistencies? The Consistency of the ECtHR's Assessment of Convictions based on International Norms

Abstract

Some of the most controversial cases before the European Court of Human Rights are those that deal with the conviction of applicants for international crimes on the basis of international law. In each case, the Court takes a seven-step approach to assess whether the international legal basis on which defendants are convicted is in conformity with Article 7(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Six such cases have come before the Court so far. This article analyzes the degree to which the case law of the Court is consistent with the default approach of applying these seven steps. It finds that there are several inconsistencies, most of which are detrimental to the applicants. The ambiguity thus created leads to uncertainty for all the parties involved.