Chancellor Merkel, your German ECHR Registrar Westerdiek is more than worthy of an honorarium. Her dedicated and impartial juridical professionalism came to fruition in Court Case 51482/18 (Single-Judge decision) in January 2019

German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek,
imbued with exquisit cultural and symbolic capital, and complemented by habitus.
Section V - European Court of Human Rights.

Expertly executed by judge Potocki in Single-judge decision.

F A X

Bundeskanzleramt
Bundeskanzlerin
Angela Merkel
Willy-Brandt-Straße 1
10557 Berlin

(and by email)

July 16, 2019

Subject: Requesting special honorarium on achievement

Respected Chancellor,

I hope you will be fine and cherishing sound peace at your disposal. This letter is in favour of Mrs. Claudia Westerdiek who is the German Registrar at Section V of the venerable European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It gives me great pleasure and I feel honored to convey to you my utmost respect and satisfaction about the reception I was privileged to receive by your Registrar Westerdiek.

Her most dedicated and impartial juridical professionalism came to full fruition in Court Case 51482/18 (Single-Judge decision) in January 2019. As Gerards and Glas (University Utrecht) write in "Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system":“… non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications. … these are presented with lists containing single-sentence descriptions of each case. … Relying on the quality of these preparatory documents, the judges usually simply rubber-stamp them, without looking into the file”.

I am delighted to report that grâce à your compatriot Registrar Westerdiek of the German Section V this case involving the criminal & primitive civil servant of your country, Jürgen Sonneck from Munich, has been successfully sanitized. The clumsy person of disagreeable countenance who had planned months ahead to email on May 7, 2015 a heinous complaint amounting to libel to the, stupid as one can be, police in Munich (!) using the false name “C. Paucher”, will not tarnish the image of your country.

Imbued with exquisit cultural and symbolic capital, and complemented by habitus, ’...an internal organizing mechanism which learns, as a result of social positioning, how to play the game; [relevant] dispositions arise from the fields to which one has access, knowledge and experience’ (Skeggs 2004), your German Registrar Westerdiek expertly read the signals and need of containment. As Bourdieu (1977) observed, courts “seek to recruit individuals possessing particular forms of cultural capital, these forms becoming symbolic capital as these are valued as evidence of the appropriate habitus required to perform and succeed within the specific cultural spaces that is” the judiciary.

In a responsible and appropriate way great consideration has been taken by your German Registrar following the principle that “international courts are also advised to treat different states differently. States that enjoy a high-reputation for compliance with international law pose a greater threat to the court” (Shai Dothan ‘The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group’). After all, “as states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims” (US professor emeritus Dinah Shelton ‘Significantly Disadvantaged?’). In other words, dear Chancellor, the image of your country Germany has been kept squeaky clean. The whole coverup from Munich police, via the Kangaroo Court Munich and the pompous Red Divas of Karlsruhe, all is contained and concealed. Is that not great? To guarantee this

“The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision”

(Single-decision Judge Potocki in his letter of 17/01/2019).

The sincerity your Teutonic Registrar Westerdiek has shown is impressive and a shining example of devoted altruism cum professionalism and all what makes Europe so beloved and envied the world over and, furthermore, true to Cardinal Richelieu’s musing that “secrecy is the first essential in affairs of state”.

There is something of dignity in Registrar Westerdiek’s countenance, that would not give one an unfavourable idea of her heart. A tremendous asset not only to her country but also to the distinguished Court of Human Rights, Registrar Westerdiek is more than worthy of an honorarium, I should think. You must, therefore, pardon the freedom with which I demand your attention; your feelings, I know, will bestow it unwillingly, but I demand it of your justice. Chancellor Merkel, allow me to humbly appeal to your and your country’s generosity to bestow a reward on Registrar Westerdiek for her outstanding service to the country and its citizens. It is more than earned and would fill me with with subtle pride, moral comfort and consolation. You must learn some of my philosophy. Think only of the past as its remembrance gives you pleasure.

Yours Truly,

Euro Clowns', aka European Court of Human Rights, German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek reliable protector of criminal German civil servant Jürgen Sonneck. Puts paid to Nemo judex

German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek
& Euro Clown judge Potocki
keeping Germany's image squeaky clean.

F A X

European Court of Human Rights
German Registrar Claudia Westerdiek


cc Chancellory Berlin, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, BMAS

Case 51482/18 (Single-Judge decision) - German criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck who operated under the false name “C. Paucher” protected by German ECHR Section V.

July 7, 2019

Dear German Registrar Westerdiek,

In ‘Of Publicity’ Jeremy Bentham insisted "Without publicity, no good is permanent; under the auspices of publicity, no evil can continue.” In the same vein John Stuart Mill wrote in ‘Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform’: ’The moral sentiment of mankind, in all periods of tolerably enlightened morality, has condemned concealment’.

You at the ECHR German Section V, aka The German Connection (1), seem to subscribe to Cardinal Richelieu instead: “Secrecy is the first essential in affairs of state” when the image of Germany is at stake and a full blown idiot. The principle of Nemo judex in causa sua leaves you Germans blasé. In addition, the ECHR has the means: Single-Judge decisions, a means of ominous concealment.

In her book ‘Epistemic injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing’ Fricker defines two kinds of epistemic injustice: testimonial injustice and hermeneutical injustice. Your Court’s Single-Judge decision belongs to the realm of testimonial injustice which occurs when someone's knowledge is ignored or not believed because that person is the member of a particular social group.

As Economist Bernard Connolly observed: “The European Union is explicitly anti-democratic. It aims at eliminating the rule of law ... It increasingly is Angela Merkel”. One can only shudder reading about ‘Rule 18A2 – Non-judicial rapporteurs’ in Dinah Shelton’s (US professor of International Law Emeritus) "Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights”:

“… the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states …”

Coincidentally, you are German! “Nachtigall, ick hör dir trapsen” is a German saying. It gets even more scary in "Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system" by Gerards and Glas from the University Utrecht:

“… non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications. … these are presented with lists containing single-sentence descriptions of each case. … Relying on the quality of these preparatory documents, the judges usually simply rubber-stamp them, without looking into the file”.

With the Single-Judge decision 51482/18 YOU protected and covered the primitive German criminal civil servant Jürgen Sonneck (from Munich) who had the ass-hatted idea to email a criminal complaint to police using the false name “C. Paucher”, accusing me falsely of hate speech! That amounts to malicious intent.

The blazing stupidity of this criminal creep cum Nazi-style civil servant Jürgen Sonneck was just so embarrassing for Germany, it had to be hidden in the Fritzl Keller of ECHR Single-Judge decisions and, this being "The rotten Heart of Europe" (Bernhard Connolly again),  the ECHR which claims to honor and guarantee human rights in the hodgepodge that is Europe, covers its tracks and resorts to the destruction of the case files:

“The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision”.

The ECHR should have the decency to call Single-Judge decisions what they are: a Registry rapporteur decision signed by a single judge who has not even looked at the case file in toto, “seconded by personnel paid for by individual states” who try their best to keep their country’s image clean. In particular, when the EU paymaster’s and high-reputation country Germany’s image needs to be preserved!

In ‘The Impartiality of International Judges: Evidence from the European Court of Human Rights’  Erik Voeten, Georgetown University, informs:

"Admissibility decisions are based on the recommendation of a rapporteur, which is usually the national judge of the respondent government, granting that judge considerable leverage over national cases.”

Shai Dothan addresses in ‘The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group’ the country-specific partialities and bias of the ECHR:

Importantly for the purposes of this paper, international courts are also advised to treat different states differently. States that enjoy a high-reputation for compliance with international law pose a greater threat to the court. Their non-compliance or even their criticism can significantly harm the court's reputation. To counter this threat, international courts treat high-reputation states more leniently than they do low-reputation states. They will reserve their most demanding judgments—especially those that are based on doctrinal novelties—to states that have a low-reputation.

This is seconded by Dinah Shelton who again in ‘Significantly Disadvantaged?’ observes:

“As states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims.” 

And further in a rather damning description of court proceedings:

“As Cameron has noted and judges on the Court have confirmed in discussions with the author, the lists transmitted electronically to the single judges contain only one or two sentence summaries of each matter recommended for dismissal, identifying the right being invoked; the judges do not see the applications and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry.”

German Registrar Westerdiek, you certainly delivered big time. For that you deserve a financial bonus and I will personally address this duty of the German government in an open letter to Chancellor Merkel. My motto is: credit where credit is due! The image of a country has to be safeguarded and nurtured, whatever it takes. You applied the final sanitization to this seedy feat conceived by the civil servant Jürgen Sonneck, hiding behind a false name, and subsequently covered up by Munich police, the Kangaroo Court in Munich and the ridiculous Red Divas in Karlsruhe. So reminiscent of Nazi times, Adorno would muse.

When the Court’s decision reads “the Court finds in the light of all the material in its possession and

in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met” and subsequently, “the Court declares the application inadmissible”, it triggers the question what makes this internet meme NOT covered by free speech? Where does the ECHR see a “means of propaganda” in this Marissa Mayer meme?

“(2) Means of propaganda within the meaning of subsection (1) shall only be those writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) the content of which is directed against the free, democratic constitutional order or the idea of international understanding.” - German Criminal Code 86

Being a patriotically committed German Registrar, vested in the solemn duty to safeguard Germany’s image, you chose to be unconcerned by this primitive and heinous act of

• the criminal civil servant J. Sonneck alias “C. Paucher” and 
• armed police dashing into the room of my Tibetan daughter and confiscation of our computers for the second time does not bother you. Neither do you care when
• the laptop of my then school-attending daughter is deliberately damaged by the Kangaroo Court Munich.
• Smartphone confiscation without court order by police just like in Nazi times leaves your Euro-Clowns Court (the British SUN and The Independent) cold.
• The same intended with my daughter’s smartphone is fine and my complaint according to Article 35 is “manifestly ill-founded”?

Your Court does not even follow its own set criteria. THE NEW ADMISSIBILITY CRITERION UNDER ARTICLE 35 § 3 (b) OF THE CONVENTION states under section II:

5. In 2010, the High Contracting Parties invited the Court to give full effect to the new admissibility criterion and to consider other possibilities of applying the principle de minimis non curat praetor.6 Further in 2011 the Court has been invited to “give full effect to the new admissibility criterion in accordance with the de minimis principle”.

The ECHR is lamenting an increase of repetitive cases. My case was about an internet meme showing the former Yahoo CEO in a photoshopped Nazi uniform and a text about ‘Work from Home’. I am not not aware of any case where the ECHR was confronted with an internet meme. So it was clearly not de minimis nor was it repetitive.

The notion Germany is a country with free speech is an interested ruse when one reads that “Only 18 Percent Of Germans Feel Free To Voice Views In Public” according to a survey conducted by the Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach and published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. And over 31 percent of Germans do not even feel free expressing themselves in private among friends. In his classic essay 'The Law' Frédéric Bastiat' wrote:

"The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces, for the purpose of acting in the sphere in which they have a right to act, of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all."

Alas, the German Section V of the ECHR chose to ignore this tenet and trampled human rights with abandon to protect the image of Germany, the paymaster of the EU, an “explicitly anti-democratic, crony capitalist state” (Bernard Connolly).

Thank you,


(1) no connection or sequel of 'The French Connection' (1971) and "Popeye" Doyle.

. . . . . . . . .

The German Connection - ECHR Section V

ECHR German Section V

and here is Jürgen Sonneck, criminal civil servant covered from bottom to top.

Hi, I do not always use the false name "C. Paucher" but when I do
I can be sure to be protected by German law officials and the ECHR.

The whole sordid affair here.

What do the Euro Clowns at the ECHR do with their tens of thousands infamous Single-Judge decisions?

ECHR digs
(with Single-Judge decision
incinerator?)

That question arises when they write to you:

01/17/2019

Complaint 51482/18

"The Court shall not keep the file in its archives for more than one year from the date of this decision.

The Registry of the European Court of Human Rights"

What would you do if you want to cover your tracks, keep the image of a decent institution devoted to human rights, wellbeing and, well, to atone for the various cultural, political and other whims of these so disparate European nation states, you sprinkle in some of that magical potion called "Margin of Appreciation"?

The number of Single-Judge decisions in 2011 was 100,000, in 2015 they struck out 36,300 complaints, in 2016 they eliminated 30,100 cases, in 2017 out went 60,150 complaints and 2018 some 33,200 cases got the axe.

Burn the whole shit! What else! After all, your image is at stake. So to imagine an incinerator inside the ECHR would not be that far off.

Let us consult the lofty European Convention on Human Rights.

ARTICLE 24

Registry and rapporteurs

2. When sitting in a single-judge formation, the Court shall be assisted by rapporteurs who shall function under the authority of the President of the Court. They shall form part of the Court’s Registry.

Oh really? It is BULLSHIT because in Rule 18A2 you read about "Non-judicial rapporteurs". You heard that right, NON-JUDICIAL rapporteurs!

Rules of Court, 1 August 2018, Registry of the Court, Strasbourg.

Rule 18A2 – Non-judicial rapporteurs

1. When sitting in a single-judge formation, the Court shall be assisted by non-judicial rapporteurs who shall function under the authority of the President of the Court. They shall form part of the Court’s Registry.

Here is Dinah Shelton of George Washington University Law School in "Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights"

"Cameron notes that this can create problems of integrity when the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states: see ibid. at 34."

There is no doubt that either the Court in Strasbourg contacted the German government or the German government got into contact with the Court to cover up this incredible fucked up incident committed by the full-blown Useful Idiot cum civil servant Jürgen Sonneck operating under the false name "C. Paucher".

Jürgen Sonneck alias "C. Paucher"

Here is why:

"Importantly for the purposes of this paper, international courts are also advised to treat different states differently. States that enjoy a high-reputation for compliance with international law pose a greater threat to the court. Their non-compliance or even their criticism can significantly harm the court's reputation. To counter this threat, international courts treat high-reputation states more leniently than they do low-reputation states. They will reserve their most demanding judgments—especially those that are based on doctrinal novelties—to states that have a low-reputation."

Or as Dinah L. Shelton put it:

"As states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims."

Here is a damning assessment in "Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system" by Gerards and Glas from Utrecht in The Netherlands:

"It has been well documented that non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications. When they allocate cases to the single judges, these are presented with lists containing single-sentence descriptions of each case."

It gets better:

"Relying on the quality of these preparatory documents, the judges usually simply rubber-stamp them, without looking into the file.

Given that the single-judge decisions currently make up nearly 80% of all the applications disposed of, this means that in all these cases, the decisions are taken in substance by Registry staff. This may be problematic from a perspective of independence, since it means an important responsibility for non-judicial rapporteurs who do not need to meet the strict requirements that are set for judges."

That fulfills the essentials for a Clown Court.

"Macdonald, a former judge of the ECtHR, has pointed out that the whole system of European human rights protection ‘rests on the fragile foundations of the consent of the Contracting Parties’. Macdonald, ‘The Margin of Appreciation’ in Macdonald, Matscher and Petzold (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993)."

The problem of Europe is that it is a hodgepodge of culturally, politically and judicially different nation states without a common goal or aspiration.

"The Strasbourg Court does not sit at the apex of an integrated court structure. Rather, it is a court set up by a treaty among participating countries, and it operates independently of the courts of any of the member states. It exists solely to interpret and apply the provisions of the Convention, and there is no national body of law upon which it is competent to rule. The participating countries do not share a common source of law and have major cultural differences. A substantial number are, at best, emerging democracies. The problems of administering a single system of fundamental rights in such a context can be formidable. Thus, there are legitimate issues as to exactly what the nature of the review of member state decisions should be."

The Euro Clowns at the ECHR, their infamous Single-Judge decisions and their "Non-judicial rapporteurs"

Protecting and covering up the German civil servant criminal Jürgen Sonneck posing as " C. Paucher" under an assumed name.

Jürgen Sonneck alias "C. Paucher"

The Euro clowns of the ECHR in Strasbourg know very well they have to treat high-reputation states more leniently than low-reputation states

A German civil servant using a false name?
No sweat, Euro clowns judge Potocki will cover that up for ze Germans.
Case 51482/18 (Single-Judge decision)

The Motivations of Individual Judges and How They Act as a Group (Pdf)

By Shai Dothan

The judicial tactics used by courts are complicated and context-specific. An interesting, perhaps counter-intuitive result, is that courts build their reputation by deliberately issuing demanding judgments and using reasoning techniques that expose their discretion. Compliance with such judgments is harder and more unexpected and that is why when states do comply, they send a potent signal that boosts the court's reputation.

Importantly for the purposes of this paper, international courts are also advised to treat different states differently. States that enjoy a high-reputation for compliance with international law pose a greater threat to the court. Their non-compliance or even their criticism can significantly harm the court's reputation. To counter this threat, international courts treat high-reputation states more leniently than they do low-reputation states. They will reserve their most demanding judgments—especially those that are based on doctrinal novelties—to states that have a low-reputation.

There is more. Here is the University of Birmingham. It is highly recommended to read their paper!

Managing judicial innovation in the European Court of Human Rights (Pdf)

by De Londras, Fiona; Dzehtsiarou, Kanstantsin

What this suggests, at the very least, is that the ECtHR is acutely aware of the political context in which its decisions are made and, indeed, of the extent to which it is on safe or shaky ground in the eyes of the relevant state party; considerations that become even more acute in situations in which sovereigntist urges might be said to run high. 

About the ECHR's "apparent willingness to treat different states somewhat differently in this context".

Managing Sovereigntist Inclinations

While issues that go to a state’s perceived identity bring about a reluctance to submit to international supervision on the part of states, matters that are seen to have existential implications for the state can draw out sovereigntist inclinations. In other words, in relation to these issues states can feel not only inclined but also justified in distancing themselves from international supervision and may instead concentrate on engaging with and within their domestic legal systems, making international courts’ supervision of these issues particularly difficult. This is clear from a consideration of the ECtHR’s treatment of national security cases and, in particular, its apparent willingness to treat different states somewhat differently in this context. 

Who would even dare to suggest that this august European Court "may well be susceptible to capture"?

If, as we suggest above, the Court sometimes takes cognisance of non-legal factors including the possible implications for its own position of taking an innovative approach to a question before it, it may well be susceptible to capture.

As Shai Dothan put it, "high reputation states" may even " influence the outcome unduly". There is absolutely no doubt that the German administration was involved in getting Case 51482/18 thrown out!

In other words, there is a possibility that in either deciding whether to hear the case at all or in reaching its final decision on a case the Court may take into account contracting parties’ reactions and allow this to influence the outcome unduly.

Or, as Lorenzo Zucca, for instance, criticised in footnote 57:

"what the ECtHR does not seem to understand is that its legitimacy as an international court of human rights also crucially depends on the quality of its reasoning, which should be regarded as exemplary in articulation and depth. Without those qualities, any decision is a defeat for justice even if it may be a Pyrrhic victory for institutional respectability" Zucca, ‘Lautsi: A Commentary on a Decision by the ECtHR Grand Chamber’ (2013) 11 International Journal of Constitutional Law 229.

The EU is known for highly dissenting and quarrelling member states which is no wonder given the history of Europe as a whole and this can and does lead to "fragile foundations of the consent of the Contracting Parties". Footnote 102 reads:

Macdonald, a former judge of the ECtHR, has pointed out that the whole system of European human rights protection ‘rests on the fragile foundations of the consent of the Contracting Parties’. Macdonald, ‘The Margin of Appreciation’ in Macdonald, Matscher and Petzold (eds), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights (1993) 83 at 123.

 How about this to conclude?

"It has been well documented that non-judicial rapporteurs (Registry officers) sift through, assess and categorise the many incoming applications." 

This is from "Access to justice in the European Convention on Human Rights system" by Gerards and Glas from Utrecht in The Netherlands.

European Court of Human Rights ....... a VIP box of cardsharks? You betcha!

The video is in German. What he is basically saying is:

Our judiciary is incurably degenerate. It is an expiring soviet model where first-instance procedural truths from the higher courts to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) are copied / pasted without plausibility testing.

One apparatchik controls the other. Nothing clever can come out of that. Of the 60 to 70,000 complaints that end up in Strasbourg every year, 90 to 98% are unfounded with a half-page text module. The complaints are not even read. Then they are destroyed.

Case Switzerland: On the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Swiss Confederation's accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, our Foreign Minister Didier BURKHALTER congratulated himself on the fact that Strasbourg only approved 1.6% of all claims from Switzerland (Bundesrat report of 19.11.2014). Wanted to say: We have the perfect constitutional state. The whole world believes that.
(Google translate)

. . . . . . . .

Here is an excerpt from the excellent paper 'Significantly Disadvantaged? Shrinking Access to the European Court of Human Rights' authored by Dinah L. Shelton, Manatt/Ahn Professor of International Law Emeritus
Address:
2000 H Street, NW
Washington, District Of Columbia 20052

I have meanwhile read quite some papers with particular view on these so-called Single-Judges decisions and I have to say, without any intent to flatter her, Dinah Shelton's paper is the most outspoken. Here goes:

"As states do not like to be found in violation of their human rights obligations, it is not surprising that they would seek to limit admissibility, even (or especially) in respect to meritorious claims.

Currently, the Registry undertakes an initial evaluation of applications. A nonjudicial rapporteur from the Registry decides whether the application should be assigned to a single judge, a Committee or a Chamber, and assists the single judges, transmitting the lists of cases deemed inadmissible to the judges for approval. The President of the Court decides on the number of judges designated to sit as single judges and appoints them to serve for a period of one year. The Rules of Court provide that where the material submitted by the applicant is ‘on its own’ sufficient to disclose that the application is inadmissible or should be struck out of the list, it is to be considered by a single judge unless there is some special reason to act to the contrary. The single judge may declare inadmissible or strike out the application without further examination or appeal, notifying the applicant of the decision by letter. As Cameron has noted and judges on the Court have confirmed in discussions with the author, the lists transmitted electronically to the single judges contain only one or two sentence summaries of each matter recommended for dismissal, identifying the right being invoked; the judges do not see the applications  (26) and a few have complained of feeling that they are expected to ‘rubber-stamp’ the decisions of the Registry. Once the application is rejected, the author of it is sent a form letter so indicating, without explanation or reasoned decision, simply stating that ‘taking ac- count of all the elements in its possession, and to the extent that it is able to evaluate the allegations formulated’, the Court sees no reason to proceed.

(26) Cameron, ‘The Court and the Member States: Procedural Aspects’ in Andreas Follesdal et al. (eds),Constituting Europe: The European Court of Human Rights in a National, European and Global Context (2013) 25 at 33. Lack of access to the applications is understandable because the single judge is unlikely to comprehend the many different languages of the applications.
(27) The problem of a ‘hidden judiciary’ of secretariat lawyers making the actual decisions is not unique to the European system. Cameron notes that this can create problems of integrity when the Registry is partly staffed with temporarily seconded personnel paid for by individual states: see ibid. at 34."

There is more good stuff in her paper.

. . . . . . . . .

Here are some comments of victims under the Single-Judges regime.

What a disgrace these single-judge decision are and here.

. . . . . . . . .

ECHR Judge Potocki's decision reeks to high heaven and is an insult to any democratic being! The ECHR is covering a criminal. But what else would you expect from fucking Europe?!

"Publicity is the very soul of justice.” - Jeremy Bentham