The Belilios Case brief

The Belilios Case (1988 European Court of Human Rights; p. 49)

• Swiss woman punished for demonstrating. The municipal police board imposed a fine on her in her absence. The bd responded to her claims of illegitimacy of the board by saying that their jurisdiction cld not be challenged. The woman appealed and was unsuccessful w/ the federal court b/c the court said the European Convention on Human Rights was subject to the interpretive declaration Switzerland added—Swiss “consider that the guarantee of a fair trial is intended solely to ensure ultimate control by the judiciary over the acts and decisions of the public authorities.”
• Holding 1: The interpretive declaration added to the treaty is really a reservation.
• Holding 2: The reservation is invalid.
• The reservation basically meant that the right to a fair trial was limited as long as there was judicial review of the law.
• The reservation was too general.
• Holding 3: Switzerland violated Article 6(1) of the Convention (“right to a fair trial”)
• The police bd wasn’t enough b/c there is no tribunal—not really adjudicated in the traditional sense.
• The Convention doesn’t define “fair trial,” but custom/practice w/in the region (norms) show that Article 6 requires and “independent and impartial.”
• The court in this case rejects a fundamental rule of international law: silence (if other countries don’t object to a reservation to begin with, it should be valid). It is likely the court concerned here w/ human rights.
• Why do countries make reservations and remain parties to a treaty?
  • It just makes the treaty more dormant for the country.
• Court’s approach here was about universality.
• Can’t have a reservation in Bilateral treaties.