本篇澳洲代写价格-欧洲人权法院讲了欧洲人权法院的目的是对侵犯公民权利和政治权利的个人和国家申请作出裁决。最高法院成立于1959年，它制定了各州应遵守的人权公约。它甚至有一个全职法庭，申请人可以直接申请。最高法院迄今已作出约1万项判决，通常被认为对因社会和国际上的共同问题而聚集在一起的许多国家具有约束力。本篇澳洲代写价格由澳洲第一论文 Assignment First辅导网整理，供大家参考阅读。
The purpose of the European court of human rights is to set up rulings on individual and state applications in the violation of civil and political rights. Set up in 1959, the court has set out conventions to be followed on human rights in individual states. It even has a full-time court that applicants would be able to apply in directly. The court has delivered around 10,000 judgements till now and are usually considered binding on many counties that convene together for mutual problems, socially and internationally.
Due diligence standards are the first of the standards that are reported to be incorporated by the European Court of High Commission. The ECHR has also presented many rulings on the standard and has set several authoritative minimums that have to be followed in due diligence. The ECHR incorporated the due diligence standards in its regulations for the following reasons. Firstly, violence against women was considered as a form of discrimination, and secondly it was the state’s necessity to work against violence against women. In incorporating this, the ECHR follows the issuance of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (DEVAW) by the U.N. General Assembly. The DEVAW had presented the due diligence tool as a way to assess whether the state was indeed doing what was necessary to stop violence against its women. The DEVAW had declared that all states have an obligation to show compliance to standards. They had to pursue the appropriate means without any form of delay to code and implement policies which would eliminate violence against women in a through way. They should exercise the due diligence standard in order to prevent violence against women wherever possible. These actions have to be punished as well irrespective of whether it was state perpetrated or individually perpetrates. The DEVAW was attempting to take a very thorough stance on the issue of rape and violence on women. Now these standards have been kept in both word and spirit by the ECHR. The ECHR expects that states showing the necessary precautions when following these as the authoritative minimums in compliance. The state is also expected to hold itself accountable for its non-state actors as well. The case decisions in Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria  (Application no. 71127/01) and Opuz v. Turkey  (Application no. 33401/02) shows how standards are expected to be followed by EU member states in a very diligent manner. The formal recognition of state responsibility based on which orders the ECHR adjudged these cases was formally adopted in 1998. ECHR had formally provided that states will have to be responsible for any private act of violence or rape against women. The ECHR presents a state’s obligations as thus
“extends beyond its primary duty to secure the right to life by putting in place effective criminal-law provisions to deter the commission of offenses against the person backed up by law-enforcement machinery for the prevention, suppression and sanctioning of breaches of such provisions. The Court established criteria for finding a violation of the positive obligation to protect life, noting that it must be shown that the authorities knew, or ought to have known at the time, of the existence of a “real and immediate risk” and that they failed to “take measures within the scope of their powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid that risk.”