•Gross total removal has a pivotal role in surgical treatment of intradural spinal tumors.•Sodium fluorescein prevents vascular injuries also preserving pial vessels in posterior ...myelotomy.•Fluorescence before the durotomy helps to distinguishing tumor from healthy tissue in intradural lesions.•Intraoperative fluorescence is safe and effective, also preserving functional anatomy in tumor removal.
HOW far do obligations to respect human rights travel? Do British troops using military force outside Europe need to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights? And if so, do these ...obligations persist even when British troops are using force alongside non- European countries during military operations authorized by the United Nations? Two ground-breaking judgments by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights addressed these questions in July 2011: 'Al-Skeini v United Kingdom' (Application no. 55721/07) (2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 18 and 'Al-Jedda v United Kingdom' (Application no. 27021/08) (2011) 53 E.H.R.R. 23. The applicants in Al-Skeini were relatives of Iraqi citizens killed by British soldiers during the post-2003 occupation of Iraq: three were shot at by British soldiers, one died during a cross-fire between British soldiers and "insurgents", another was allegedly drowned in a river after being arrested, and the sixth died of torture while in detention. They claimed that the UK had breached its obligation to carry out an independent investigation on their relatives' death under Article 2 ECHR. The applicant in 'Al-Jedda' was detained by British forces in Basrah for unspecified "imperative reasons of security" between October 2004 and December 2007. He was not charged with any crime, and he claimed a violation of his Article 5 ECHR right not to be arbitrarily imprisoned.
The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in 'Ahmad v UK' dangerously undermines the well-established case law of the Court on counter-terrorism and 'non-refoulement' towards torture, ...inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Although ostensibly rejecting the 'relativist' approach to Article 3 ECHR adopted by the House of Lords in 'Wellington v Secretary of State for the Home Department', the Court appeared to accept that what is a breach of Article 3 in a domestic context may not be a breach in an extradition or expulsion context. This statement is difficult to reconcile with the 'jurisprudence constante' of the Court in the last fifteen years, according to which Article 3 ECHR is an absolute right in all its applications, including 'non-refoulement', regardless of who the potential victim of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment is, what she may have done, or where the treatment at issue would occur.
This article highlights the various legal obstacles faced by injured parties when litigating against States in relation to their participation in the operations of international organizations. The ...primary issue is finding the right forum. Rules on the invocation of responsibility hinge on whether the respondent State is sued before its own courts (domestic law being decisive), before the courts of another country (state immunity notwithstanding), or before international courts or tribunals (Monetary Gold difficulties aside). This choice will largely depend on who the applicant is: an individual, or a State. In turn, a State may act either because it was directly injured or because it is espousing a claim of one of its citizens, in which case rules on diplomatic protection may present further obstacles. Assuming that a suitable forum is available, other hindrances may be encountered, such as legal costs and restrictive substantive law. Solutions often proposed as remedies to such obstacles, such as the further reduction of State immunity before domestic courts, may be less effective than a more ambitious strategy aimed at increasing the range of situations in which domestic public law procedures and international adjudication are actually available to victims of harm.
This article highlights the various legal obstacles faced by injured parties when litigating against States in relation to their participation in the operations of international organizations. The ...primary issue is finding the right forum. Rules on the invocation of responsibility hinge on whether the respondent State is sued before its own courts (domestic law being decisive), before the courts of another country (state immunity notwithstanding), or before international courts or tribunals (Monetary Gold difficulties aside). This choice will largely depend on who the applicant is: an individual, or a State. In turn, a State may act either because it was directly injured or because it is espousing a claim of one of its citizens, in which case rules on diplomatic protection may present further obstacles. Assuming that a suitable forum is available, other hindrances may be encountered, such as legal costs and restrictive substantive law. Solutions often proposed as remedies to such obstacles, such as the further reduction of State immunity before domestic courts, may be less effective than a more ambitious strategy aimed at increasing the range of situations in which domestic public law procedures and international adjudication are actually available to victims of harm.
By focusing on the Italian case concerning the 'extraordinary rendition' (or in precise legal terms, the abduction) of Mr Abu Omar, this article addresses the obligations states have under the UN ...Torture Convention to prosecute individuals for torture and complicity in torture occurring as a result of 'extraordinary renditions'. The article considers the obligation to criminalize complicity in torture and its implementation in Italy. It then analyses the ongoing Italian criminal proceedings concerning the abduction of Mr Abu Omar and concludes that Italy failed to comply with the obligation to prosecute complicity in torture under the Convention for a variety of reasons. In particular, it addresses the issue of 'state secrecy', which emerged during the proceedings and was decided upon by the Constitutional Court, and argues that state secrecy cannot be used to avoid compliance with international obligations.
PDF
