Ahead of the 134th Session of the Committee of Ministers in Chişinău (14-15 May 2026), the European Criminal Bar Association (ECBA) has submitted a formal letter of observations to Mr. Mihai Popșoi, Chair of the Committee of Ministers, regarding the proposed Political Declaration on the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and migration.
Our Observations of Principle
The ECBA considers it a professional duty to raise three critical observations of principle regarding the current proposal to “rebalance” Convention rights.
- The Nature of the ECHR: The Convention is not a regulatory framework that can be calibrated by political consensus in response to contemporary pressures. Its guarantees were designed to be placed beyond the reach of ordinary political majorities.
- No Hierarchy of Entitlement: Under the Convention, rights attach to the human person as such. There is no hierarchy of entitlement based on nationality, immigration status, or criminal record. The absolute nature of Article 3 exists specifically to protect those whom political majorities may regard as “undesirable”.
- Systemic Risk: Modifying the protective scope of Articles 3 or 8 for one category of person via a political declaration creates a dangerous precedent. This technique could, in the future, be applied to any other group whose protection is perceived as politically inconvenient, such as those involved in judicial independence or freedom of expression.
Our Request to the Committee of Ministers
The ECBA respectfully urges the Committee to ensure that any declaration emerging from the Chişinău session:
- Reaffirms the absolute nature of the Article 3 prohibition and the principle of non-refoulement without qualification or “carve-outs” for specific categories of persons.
- Reaffirms the interpretive authority of the Court under Article 32 and the “floor-not-ceiling” clause of Article 53.
- Abstains from any formulation signalling that Convention protections may be modulated based on the identity of the claimant.
Fundamental rights only become truly meaningful when they extend to those whose protection is politically uncomfortable.
We believe that to depart from this understanding would weaken the rule of law and diminish the very system the Committee is entrusted to protect.