Helena Wray—Article 8 ECHR, Family Reunification and the UK’s Supreme Court: Family Matters? Hart, Oxford, 2023. £76.50 ISBN: 9781509902583

This study is the first to statistically analyse all eviction case law of the European Court of Human Rights up to 2024. It examines the impact of various case characteristics, such as the type of tenure, the reason for eviction and the involvement of vulnerable people, with a specific focus on the role of ownership and property rights. The study evaluates whether evicted homeowners have a higher success rate compared to non-owners, as they can invoke both Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Additionally, it investigates whether landmark cases like McCann v the United Kingdom and F.J.M. v the United Kingdom serve as ‘tipping points’ that significantly altered the Court’s jurisprudence. The findings highlight the substantial influence of the McCann case on subsequent eviction rulings and reveal that being a tenant in the public rental sector significantly increases the likelihood of the Court finding a violation of Article 8.

Prison officers allegedly sexually assaulted and harassed Vida Rabbani, an Iranian journalist and activist, during a body search at Evin Prison in Tehran on October 3, an informed source told Human Rights Watch in late November.

Click to expand Image

Vida Rabbani. 
© Private

Security forces arrested Rabbani in September 2022, during the nationwide protests sparked by Mahsa Jina Amini’s death while detained by morality police. In December 2022, Tehran’s revolutionary court sentenced Rabbani to six years in prison on charges of “assembly and collusion against national security” and an additional fifteen months for “propaganda against the state.”

Rabbani had previously been arrested and convicted due to her activism. In another case in 2022, Tehran’s revolutionary court sentenced her to 10 years in prison. Due to a 2023 general amnesty order, part of her sentence was pardoned.

Rabbani, who experienced severe headaches and poor physical health while serving her prison sentence, was temporarily released on medical leave. Upon her return to prison on October 3, she was allegedly sexually assaulted by prison officers during a body search. She reportedly made a complaint about this violation, which resulted in further punishments imposed by the prison disciplinary council, including being denied further leave.

Human Rights Watch previously documented how Iran’s security forces sexually assaulted and harassed people in detention.

In a letter written by Rabbani and published by Iran Wire on November 26, Rabbani highlighted the deteriorating health conditions of human rights defenders Narges Mohammadi and Warisha Moradi, also in Evin prison. She announced that, as of November 18, she and government critic Motahareh Goonei have been on a hunger strike, demanding medical attention for Mohammadi and adequate healthcare for other fellow detainees.

In her letter she wrote: “Our hunger strike, Motahareh’s and mine, is nothing but an act of desperation in the face of injustice. An act we know will harm our bodies, yet we see no other path before us.”

The alleged sexual assault against Rabbani, along with the serial violations of detainees’ rights in Iranian prisons, is appalling and the abuses should be publicly raised and condemned by states engaging with Iran. Targeting women activists is part of a broader effort by Iranian authorities to silence dissent. Iranian authorities should halt such inhumane practices, ensure the safety and rights of all detainees, and release all journalists and human rights defenders unlawfully detained, including Vida Rabbani.

This article examines the use of misleading conduct law to challenge false or deceptive business claims about their human rights practices and impacts. It does so in the context of recent developments in the field of business and human rights including the introduction of non-financial reporting, disclosure and human rights due diligence that have seen an increase in business communications about their human rights impacts. The article uses the Protect, Respect and Remedy framework of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to analyse the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (2005/29) and the Australian Consumer Law. Each prohibit misleading conduct by business. The article argues that, to differing extents, these legislations partially address the accountability gap that has emerged in the context of corporate human rights claims and practices.