PART 1: Overview of the Concil of Europe, the Convention and the Court Court regards the Convention as a “living instrument”,34 it interprets and defines Convention rights in light of present-day conditions, not conditions obtaining when it was drafted more than 50 years ago. In the same vein, the Court strives to interpret and apply the Convention “in a manner which renders its rights practical and effective, not theoretical and illusory”.35 For instance, the Court held the following in its judgment in the case of Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom: [S]ince the Convention is first and foremost a system for the protection of human rights, the Court must have regard to the changing conditions within the respondent State and within Contracting States generally and respond, for example, to any evolving convergence as to the standards to be achieved.36 The Goodwin case provides a good example of what is meant by interpretation in light of present day conditions. Goodwin concerned the legal status of transsexuals in the United Kingdom. It was the increased acceptance among Contracting Parties in respect of transsexuality which had a direct bearing on the Court’s finding of a violation of Article 8 on a matter which had previously not been found to breach the Convention. Naturally, the evolving ethical and legal standards of the Council of Europe will have an equal bearing on Article 3. For instance, it is possible that official conduct that was formerly not considered to be severe enough to reach the threshold for a finding of a violation of Article 3 might in light of current standards be considered to constitute ill-treatment in breach of this Article. Similarly, conduct that was formerly considered to constitute merely inhuman or degrading treatment might under current standards be regarded by the Court as torture, the most severe type of breach of the Article. Applicants should keep this in mind when assessing the merits of their cases, and of course, when arguing them before the Court. 1.5.2 The Protocols Following the entry into force of the Convention in 1953, a number of Protocols have been adopted within the Council of Europe by virtue of which some of the Contracting Parties have undertaken to protect a number of additional rights and freedoms within their jurisdictions. Protocol Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14 are Protocols which amended Convention proceedings and do not include any additional rights or freedoms. These Protocols have been signed by all Contracting Parties. 34 35 36 See, among other authorities, Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GC], nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, 4 February 2005, § 121. Ibid. Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 28957/95, 11 July 2002, § 74, and the cases cited therein. 29