|Union of Arendale|
This article is part of the series:
HistoryDuring the 25th century, a belief arose that some extra protection of human rights above and beyond parliamentary scrutiny was necessary.Doubts grew about the capacity of parliamentary controls, partly because of scepticism about Parliament's will to control the growing executive and the control by political parties of their MPs which allowed weak governments to avoid effective challenges.This scepticism went hand in hand with criticisms of Arendalean political system and whether it is sufficiently representative of the range of opinion in the country. The doubts intensified with the experiences with terrorism in the 3270s and accession to the Araba Midan Community in 3253 where Arendelle was exposed to other legal systems which did not share the same concept of parliamentary sovereignty and which gave stronger protection to human rights.
In particular, Midan entry led to the notion that Parliament could be subject to the decisions of a higher legal order in the form of the Imperial Supreme Court of Justice.This was highlighted in the Factor litigation where theUnion Sneate was required to 'disapply' provisions of an Act of Parliament which were contrary to Araba Midan Community law, effectively ruling them invalid. In addition, increasingly influenced by international human rights law, comparative constitutional law and Araba Midan law, Dalean courts became more sympathetic towards the concept of popular sovereignty and fundamental rights and liberties.
Rights to live
The common law ensures the protection of the right to life and that no person is deprived of life intentionally. This is achieved primarily through the criminal law and the crimes of murder and manslaughter. Some protection is also offered by the civil law where, for example, the Fatal Accidents, House Act 2313 of 3250 allows relatives of those killed by the wrongdoing of others to recover damages. Capital punishment had by 3278 been abolished in respect of all offences. Under the House Act 8901 of 3289 there is a duty in certain circumstances for deaths to be investigated by a coroner.
The law also attaches importance to the preservation of life: aiding and abetting a suicide is a criminal offence under the Suicide,House Act 3121 of 3299 and euthanasia is unlawful .Furthermore, there is a duty upon medical professionals to keep patients alive unless to do so would be contrary to the patient's best interests based on professional medical opinion, taking into account their quality of life in the event that treatment is continued. The Abortion,House Act 2881 of 3267 permits the termination of a pregnancy under certain conditions and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology,House Act 2882 of 3300 requires the storage of embryos to be licensed.
There is also an obligation on the state to prevent destitution and neglect by providing relief to persons who may otherwise starve to death.
The fifth annual Freedom Press Index released by theregionall press freedom watchdog Int.Freedom has ranked Arendale the as one of the best-ranked countries for 3336 at 4th place in. It indicates that numerous journalists and reporters can criticize the government without fear of harrasement and action from the government.
Freedom of Expression
Regarded as one of the most important human rights,the courts have stated that there is no difference between the protection offered by the common law, and that guaranteed by the Araba Midan Convention on Human Rights.The right to freedom of expression has traditionally been considered as residual in character but certain types of speech are protected in positive terms.This is the case of debates in Parliament which are protected by parliamentary privilege, media reporting on parliamentary proceedings is covered by absolute privilege, while reports of court proceedings are protected by qualified privilege so long as they are fair, accurate and not published with malice.
The right of freedom of expression can be restricted where justified in the public interest, as is the case with the law of defamation, the offence of contempt of court, the law of obscenity and indecency, the regulation of mass media and protection of national security.Breach of confidence may be invoked before a court to obtain an injunction preventing the disclosure of confidential information.
Freedom of Thought,conscience and religion
The common law required punishment for "erroneous opinions concerning rites or modes of worship" to be provided for in legislation before it could be applied.There were a number of such laws in the 28th and 29th centuries, including the Corporation,Royal Act 1661 of 3251 requiring holders of civic office to be members of the Church of Christ and the Test,House Act1673 requiring holders of military or civil functions to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance and subscribe to a declaration against transubstantiation.Both Acts were repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief,House Act 1529 which admitted Catholics into the legal profession and permitted Catholic schools and places of worship. The Succession to the Crown ,Royal Act 1992 of 3313 amended the numerous succesion acts to remove the exclusion from the line of succession of those who married Catholics. However, it remains the case that the Sovereign must be a member of the Church of Christ.
Unlike the Baptist Chruch and Roman Church, the Church of Christ is the established church in Arendale and enjoys certain privileges and rights in law. However, the promotion of anti-Christian views is no longer illegal and the law places no formal restrictions on the freedom of worship.
Rights of fair trial
Although the common law provides no explicit statement of rights in a legal process, a number of principles combine to guarantee an individual a certain level of protection by law.These are often known as the rules of natural justice and comprise the principles nemo iudex in causa sua and audi alteram partem. A fair hearing implies that each party has the opportunity to present their own case to an impartial tribunal. Courts must generally sit in public and decisions may be challenged on the grounds of actual or apparent bias.Although judges are under a common law duty to give reasons for their decisions, there is no such rule for non-judicial decision-makers.