Abstract
In August 1949, in the framework of the prerogatives and its role, just three months after the establishment of the Council of Europe, its Assembly consultative session her first took on the task of drafting a document which would be guaranteed rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual. After depositing and ratification by ten states, the Convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. Now it has become almost a condition “sine qua non” for membership in the Council of Europe. European countries, members of the Council of Europe and signatory to the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and 11th protocols to the Convention are obliged to undertake all individuals under their jurisdiction to enable the effective enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, at least to the minimum provided for in the Convention. They are also obliged to its citizens, non-governmental organizations, other groups and individuals as well as foreigners who stay in their territory to enable the application to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In this perspective the purpose of this article is to comment the recent decision of the ECHR, taken on 28.01.2014, a decision in which the Court expressly recognized that we are dealing with a series of violations of the Convention and some of its articles specifically. The case dealt with the issue of State responsibility for sexual abuse of a 9-year-old schoolgirl, a teacher in a National School Ireland in 1973. The issue seemed very interesting, as cases of maltreatment and sexual violence against minors in Albania They were present. The case of Robin Arnold sentenced in 2010 by the Tirana Court and then the Court of Appeal to 15 years and 6 months mother on charges of sex with minors. Carl Stephan Kaminski, 70-year-old living in Durres, charged and later convicted. Fatbardh Cekrezi, Iris Misku are just some of the names of convicted by Albanian justice on charges of sexual relations or homosexual relations with minors. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2s1p560
Highlights
Article 3The Court accepted that, during the hearing of this case, it had to evaluate even the slightest State responsibility regarding the facts and standards of 1973 and especially, regardless awareness today's society around “sexual abuse of minors in a contemporary context of education”.10
In 1971, a parent of a child complained to the owner “O”, that the principal Dunderrow (L.H), a secular teacher, had sexually abused her daughter
After this period Ms O'Keeffe showed psychological problems, which it failed to connect those concerns with sexual abuse to
Summary
The Court accepted that, during the hearing of this case, it had to evaluate even the slightest State responsibility regarding the facts and standards of 1973 and especially, regardless awareness today's society around “sexual abuse of minors in a contemporary context of education”.10. The “Ryan” report of May 2009 highlighted the many complaints made to the authorities front and during the 1970s in connection with the sexual abuse of children by adults.[11] the report was focused on Industrial and Reformations schools, numerous complaints of sexual abuse have been registered in other national schools Despite this knowledge, the state continues to entrust the Irish primary education management and the vast majority of young children in Irish National Schools, to the private authorities, without using any effective control mechanism thereof. In violation of Article 3, the Irish State has failed to fulfill its obligation for Protection of Ms O'Keeffe from sexual abuse to which she had been laid in 1973 while she was a student at the National School Dunderrow
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
