TEXT 1

Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property law deals with laws to protect and enforce rights of the creators and
owners of inventions, writing, music, designs and other works, known as the "intellectual
property." There are several areas of intellectual property including copyright, trademarks,
patents, and trade secrets.

Copyright law protects the rights of creators in their works in fine arts, publishing,
entertainment, and computer software. The laws protect the owner of the work if others copy,
present, or display the owners work without permission.

Trademark law protects a word, phrase, symbol or design that is used by an entity to identify
its product or service. Examples are Dunkin Donuts orange and pink sausage style lettering,
Apple’s apple logo, and Adidas’ three stripes. Trademark owners can prevent others from using
their marks, or marks which are confusingly similar so that consumers would not be able to
identify the source. Federal and state laws govern trademarks but the Lanham Act is the
primary source of trademark protection. These laws protect against infringement and dilution.
Rights in trademarks are gained by being the first to use a trademark in commerce or being
the first to register the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Patent law grants protection for new inventions which can be products, processes or designs
and provides a mechanism for protection of the invention.The patent law promotes the sharing
of new developments with others to foster innovation. The patent owner has the right to
protect others from producing, using, distributing or importing the protected item. Essentially
the patent is a property right that can be licensed, sold, mortgaged or assigned.

Trade secrets are business practices, formulas, designs or processes used in a business, designed
specifically to provide a competitive advantage to a business. These trade secrets would not be
otherwise known to an “outsider” of the business. An example of this is the formula for Coca
Cola. Trade secrets are protected without registration and appropriate steps should be taken
by the owner to maintain confidentiality.

II Historical Development
The history of copyright law is largely a history of Western development of copyright law. In
many Eastern nations, there was no need of copyright because the government controlled all
printing until the late 1800s. In addition, there was a general lack of interest in economic
reward for literary works.
The history of Western copyright law is largely that of England and the United States. From
the printing of the Gutenberg Bible in 1456 to the Statute of Anne in 1710, there were no laws
protecting any rights of authors. In fact, as in other European and Eastern nations, early laws
regarding printing in England were most often passed by the crown to control access to
printing and to control its content. Only those with licenses from the crown could print. If
they printed works that displeased the crown, then they found their licenses terminated and
were then subject to punishment. By 1700, the licensing scheme had fallen into disarray and
the printers, or “stationers” as they were known, found that the abundance of printing presses
was leading to increased piracy. They pleaded the case of authors and their own predicament
to convince the parliament to pass the Statute of Anne, the first copyright law. The law
provided that the rights belonged to authors and to printers and booksellers that had received
the right to print from the authors, thus recognizing the essentially commercial nature of the
printing industry. Whereas the authors created the works, it was the printers that were able
to commercially exploit the works. For the printers to succeed, they had to be protected from
unauthorized reproductions appearing the moment they released their first editions to the
public.
This established a pattern for the expansion of copyright law. As new kinds of works were
invented or became commercially viable, the interested parties lobbied their governments for
protection. The more commercially important, the more likely the work or right was to be
protected.
For nearly 200 years after the Statute of Anne, most nations protected only works of their own
citizens. Works from neighboring nations were often pirated at will, and the copyright owners
had no recourse. In 1886, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic
Works marked the first significant agreement among a group of nations that they should
protect copyrights across borders. Even as late as the 1950s, the United States did not protect
rights in works from foreign nationals unless there was a specific trade treaty with that nation
or unless the nation was from the Western Hemisphere and was a member of the only
significant multinational copyright treaty the United States had signed, the Buenos Aires
Convention in 1910. Only when the United States joined the Universal Copyright Convention
(UCC) in 1955 did Congress abandon the requirement that all English-language versions of
books being sold in the United States be printed in the United States.
TEXT 2
Copyright Law
Copyright law promotes creativity in literature and the arts by affording authors and artists
lengthy terms of protection (life of the author plus 70 years) against copying. Copyright law
protects the expressive elements of a broad range of works—including books, graphical works,
dramatic works, choreography, musical compositions, sound recordings, films, sculpture,
architectural works, and computer programs—but does not extend to facts, ideas, or utilitarian
aspects of such works. Copyright protection inheres upon the creation of original works of
authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. By contrast with patent protection,
copyright law employs a relatively low threshold for protection and substantially longer
duration, but the scope of copyright protection is narrower and less absolute. For most
categories of works, copyright owners have the exclusive right to make copies, prepare
derivative works, and distribute, perform, and display their works during the term of
protection. Most continental European nations, and to a lesser extent the USA and other
nations, protect attribution and the artistic integrity of expressive works through inalienable
moral rights. In response to the increased vulnerability of digital works to widespread piracy,
the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty requires signatory
nations to provide adequate legal protection against the circumvention of copy protection
systems and the removal or alteration of copyright management information conveyed along
with a copyrighted work.
Unlike patent rights, which are essentially absolute (apart from antitrust limitations), the
rights of copyright owners are constrained by the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use
of protected works for criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Copyright law also provides for compulsory licensing of musical compositions and television
signals for cable distribution under particular circumstances. Under international conventions,
works qualifying for copyright in member nations are protected in other member nations.

Copyright is originality and fixation

Original Works
Works are original when they are independently created by a human author and have a
minimal degree of creativity. Independent creation simply means that you create it yourself,
without copying. The Supreme Court has said that, to be creative, a work must have a “spark”
and “modicum” of creativity. There are some things, however, that are not creative, like: titles,
names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic
ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; and mere listings of ingredients or contents. And always
keep in mind that copyright protects expression, and never ideas, procedures, methods,
systems, processes, concepts, principles, or discoveries.
Fixed Works
A work is fixed when it is captured (either by or under the authority of an author) in a
sufficiently permanent medium such that the work can be perceived, reproduced, or
communicated for more than a short time. For example, a work is fixed when you write it
down or record it.

“Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings
and Discoveries.”

— United States Constitution

Article I, Section 8

Copyright has been a part of U.S. law since the nation’s founding. Congress passed the first
federal copyright law in 1790, and has updated it throughout the years to keep up with the
times.

Who is a copyright owner?

Everyone is a copyright owner. Once you create an original work and fix it, like taking a
photograph, writing a poem or blog, or recording a new song, you are the author and the
owner.

Companies, organizations, and other people besides the work’s creator can also be copyright
owners. Copyright law allows ownership through “works made for hire,” which establishes
that works created by an employee within the scope of employment are owned by the
employer.
TEXT 3.

The Nuremberg Trials

Shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power as chancellor of Germany in 1933, he and
his Nazi government began implementing policies designed to persecute German -
Jewish people and other perceived enemies of the Nazi state. Over the next decade,
these policies grew increasingly repressive and violent and resulted, by the end
of World War II (1939-45), in the systematic, state-sponsored murder of some 6
million European Jews (along with an estimated 4 million to 6 million non -Jews).."

In December 1942, the Allied leaders of Great Britain, the United States and
the Soviet Union “issued the first joint declaration officially noting the mass murder
of European Jewry and resolving to prosecute those responsible for violence against
civilian populations,” according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
(USHMM). Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), the Soviet leader, initially proposed the
execution of 50,000 to 100,000 German staff officers. British Prime Minister Winston
Churchill (1874-1965) discussed the possibility of summary execution (execution
without a trial) of high-ranking Nazis, but was persuaded by American leaders that
a criminal trial would be more effective. Among other advantages, criminal
proceedings would require documentation of the crimes charged against the
defendants and prevent later accusations that the defendants had been condemned
without evidence.

There were many legal and procedural difficulties to overcome in setting up the
Nuremberg trials. First, there was no precedent for an in ternational trial of war
criminals. There were earlier instances of prosecution for war crimes, such as the
execution of Confederate army officer Henry Wirz (1823 -65) for his maltreatment
of Union prisoners of war during the American Civil War (1861-65); and the courts-
martial held by Turkey in 1919-20 to punish those responsible for the Armenian
genocide of 1915-16. However, these were trials conducted according to the laws of
a single nation rather than, as in the case of the Nuremberg trials, a group of four
powers (France, Britain, the Soviet Union and the U.S.) with different legal
traditions and practices.

The Allies eventually established the laws and procedures for the Nuremberg trials
with the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), issued on
August 8, 1945. Among other things, the charter defined three categories of crimes :
crimes against peace (including planning, preparing, starting or waging wars of
aggression or wars in violation of international agreements), war crimes (including
violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians and
prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or
deportation of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds). It
was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused of
war crimes.

Some facts about the Nuremberg Trials

The Nuremberg Trials were a series of 13 military tribunals in which nearly 200
German government, military, medical and business leaders were tried for war
crimes. In the first and most famous of these trials —the Trial of the Major War
Criminals before the International Military Tribunal —24 high-ranking Nazi
Party officials including Rudolf Hess, Hermann Göring and Wilhelm Frick were
tried for crimes against humanity during the Holocaust. (Nazi leader Adolf
Hitler and two of his top associates committed suicide at the war's end; many other
party leaders escaped prosecution.)

In addition to bringing some of Nazi Germany's most monstrous figures to justice,

the Nuremberg Trials broke new ground in international law and helped lead to the
United Nations Genocide Convention (1948), the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948) and the Geneva Convention on the Laws and Customs of War (1949).
Below are facts about what has been called the greatest trial in history.

1. Nuremberg was chosen as the location for the trials because of its symbolic
value.

2. It was the first trial of its kind with judges from four countries.

3. The Nuremberg Trials marked the first prosecutions for crimes against
humanity

4. The trials marked the introduction of simultaneous translation.

5. A Supreme Court justice led the American team of prosecutors.

6. A prosecutorial advisor originated the term “genocide.”

7. Not all the defendants were found guilty.

Of the 24 high-ranking Nazis who stood trial for war crimes before the international
tribunal, 12 were sentenced to death by hanging, including Martin Borma nn, the
personal secretary to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler who is now believed to have
committed suicide in May 1945, in absentia. Seven others, including Hitler’s former
deputy Rudolf Hess, received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life, but
three were acquitted.

8. Hermann Goering committed suicide on the eve of his scheduled execution.

9. The executioner reportedly botched the hangings.

10. A dozen subsequent trials of Nazi war criminals were held at Nuremberg.

TEXT 4

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

crime against humanity, an offense in international criminal law, adopted in the Charter of
the International Military Tribunal (Nürnberg Charter), which tried surviving Nazi leaders
in 1945, and was, in 1998, incorporated into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court (ICC).

Crimes against humanity consist of various acts—murder, extermination,

enslavement, torture, forcible transfers of populations, imprisonment, rape, persecution,
enforced disappearance, and apartheid, among others—when, according to the ICC , those are
“committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian
population.” The term also has a broader use in condemning other acts that, in a phrase often
used, “shock the conscience of mankind.” World poverty, human-made environmental
disasters, and terrorist attacks have thus been described as crimes against humanity. The
broader use of the term may be intended only to register the highest possible level of moral
outrage, or the intention may be to suggest that such offenses be recognized, formally, as legal
offenses.

Considered either as a legal offense or as a moral category, the concept of crimes against
humanity embodies the idea that individuals who either make or follow state policy can be
held accountable by the international community. For some, a crime against humanity is
simply an inhumanity of an especially gross type. For others, major atrocities have the
potential to damage international peace, for they are either a prelude to external aggression or
have effects that spill over state borders. For still others, genocide is at the core of crimes
against humanity; the term crime against humanity was first officially used in condemning
the Armenian Genocide and was first adopted in law as a response to the Holocaust. Genocidal
attacks on people on the basis of group membership implicitly deny the victims’ human status,
according to that view, thus affronting all human beings.
Genocide

Definition
Article 2 of the Genocide Convention defines genocide
as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;

2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction, in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article 3 also provides that the following acts shall be punishable:

1. Conspiracy to commit genocide;

2. Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
3. Attempt to commit genocide;
4. Complicity in genocide.

The Genocide Convention was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN on 9 December
1948 (GA Resolution 260 A [III]) and entered into force in 1951. As of June 2015, 146 States
have ratified the Convention. However, the provisions of the Genocide Convention are
applicable even to States that have not ratified it.
The crime of genocide is also defined in the same terms in Article 6 of the Statute of the
International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome in July 1998. The Court has jurisdiction over
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide. The crime of genocide is different from
the notions of massacres, persecutions, and deliberate attacks against civilians—which qualify
as crimes against humanity.
Interpretation of the Definition of Genocide

Genocide is peculiar when compared to other crimes against humanity or war crimes on
several points: the acts covered, the category constituting the targeted group, and the specific
intent of the offender ( mens rea ).
 Immediate or eventual biological destruction: The acts covered go beyond murder.
They cover actions that may not imply immediate death but that will eventually lead
to disappearance of the group as such. These are deliberate acts that aim to destroy—
immediately or eventually—a group as such. Consequently, the following are covered:
acts deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
destruction as well as imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,
forcible transfer of children, and causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of
the group (including rape).

 Destruction of a group as such: The acts covered by the definition are those that target
an individual not as such, but because he or she is a member of a national, racial, ethnic,
or religious group.
 Destruction in whole or in part: Acts must have been committed with intent to destroy
the group in whole or in part. Interpretation of this clause raises the issue of whether
the requirement of destruction “in whole or in part” only concerns the destruction or
also the intent. Indeed, some acts that amount to genocide do not necessarily provoke
immediate death but will make it impossible for the group to survive in the short or
middle term.
 Proof of specific intent to destroy: As noted above, one of the difficulties of the
definition of genocide is that the acts concerned must show a specific intent to destroy,
beyond particular individuals, a group as such. It is not enough that the offender has
committed the act; it must be proved that he was aiming at the final result of the
crime—the destruction, in whole or part, of a specific group.
Text 5

Article 9 right to freedom of thought, belief and religion

It includes the right to change your religion or beliefs at any time.

You have the right to put your thoughts and beliefs into action. This could include your right
to wear religious clothing, the right to talk about your beliefs or take part in religious worship.
Public authorities cannot stop you practising your religion, without very good reason.
Importantly, this right protects a wide range of non-religious beliefs including atheism,
agnosticism, veganism and pacifism. For a belief to be protected under this article, it must be
serious, concern important aspects of human life or behaviour, be sincerely held, and be
worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

Public authorities cannot interfere with your right to hold or change your beliefs, but there
are some situations in which public authorities can interfere with your right to manifest or
show your thoughts, belief and religion. This is only allowed where the authority can show
that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to protect:

 public safety
 public order
 health or morals, and
 the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the
problem concerned.

Using this right – example

The European Court of Human Rights has found that a person cannot be forced to demonstrate
views or behaviour associated with a particular religion. This means, for example, that public
authorities should take care when using procedures that involve the swearing of oaths. A
requirement to swear on a religious text, such as the Bible, would breach human rights law.
An alternative form of affirmation should be available that isn’t connected with religion.

What the law says

This text is taken directly from the Human Rights Act.

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes
freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and
observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are
prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others.

Example case - R (Williamson and others) v Secretary of State for Education and Employment
and others [2005]

A group of parents and teachers tried unsuccessfully to use Article 9 to overturn the ban on
corporal punishment of children in schools. They believed that part of the duty of education
in the Christian context was for teachers to assume the parental role and administer physical
punishment to misbehaving children. The House of Lords rejected the case because the
parents’ rights under Article 9 were restricted by the need to protect children from the harmful
effects that corporal punishment might cause – a punishment that involves deliberately
inflicting physical violence. The House of Lords concluded that the vulnerability of children
made the legislation necessary and that the statutory ban on corporal punishment in schools
pursued a legitimate aim and was proportionate.

(Case summary taken from Human rights, human lives: a guide to the Human Rights Act for
public authorities. Download the publication for more examples and legal case studies that
show how human rights work in practice.)

Text 6

Right to Education

Around 244 million children and youth are deprived of education worldwide as a result of
social, economic and cultural factors. 98 million of whom are in Sub-Saharan Africa, the region
with the highest out-of-school population. Yet only 70 per cent of the world’s countries legally
guarantee 9 years or more of compulsory education. And an estimated 771 million young
people and adults lack basic literacy skills, of which two thirds are women

Education is an empowering right in itself and one of the most powerful tools by which
economically and socially marginalized children and adults can lift themselves out of poverty
and participate fully in society. To unleash the full transformational power of education and
meet international markers of progress such as those of the Sustainable Development Agenda,
everyone must have access to it. Binding countries to certain standards by way of law is one
way of ensuring access to quality education is widened. Legal guarantees and protection of the
right to education are not time-bound (unlike policies and plans). They also ensure
that judicial mechanisms (such as courts and tribunals) can determine whether human rights
obligations are respected, impose sanctions for violations and transgressions, and ensure that
appropriate action is taken.
 Education is intrinsically valuable as humankind’s most effective tool for personal
empowerment. Education takes on the status of a human right because it is integral to and
enhances human dignity through its fruits of knowledge, wisdom and understanding.
Moreover, for instrumental reasons education has the status of a multi-faceted social, economic
and cultural human right. It is a social right because in the context of the community it
promotes the full development of the human personality. It is an economic right because it
facilitates economic self-sufficiency through employment or self-employment. It is a cultural
right because the international community has directed education toward the building of a
universal culture of human rights. In short, education is the very prerequisite for the individual
to function fully as a human being in modern society.

Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has a right to
education and that "Education shall be directed to the full development of the human
personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Education as a human right means:

 the right to education is legally guaranteed for all without any discrimination

 states have the obligation to protect, respect, and fulfil the right to education

 there are ways to hold states accountable for violations or deprivations of the right to education

What is the content of the right to education?

The right to education encompasses both entitlements and freedoms, including the:

 right to free and compulsory primary education

 right to available and accessible secondary education (including technical and vocational
education and training), made progressively free

 right to equal access to higher education on the basis of capacity made progressively free

 right to fundamental education for those who have not received or completed primary
education

 right to quality education both in public and private schools

 freedom of parents to choose schools for their children which are in conformity with their
religious and moral convictions

 freedom of individuals and bodies to establish and direct education institutions in conformity
with minimum standards established by the state

 academic freedom of teachers and students.

THE 4 As OF EDUCATION

The 4As were developed by the first UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education, Katarina
Tomaševski, and adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in
its General Comment 13 on the right to education (1999, para.6). To be a meaningful right,
education in all its forms and at all levels shall exhibit these interrelated and essential features:

 Available – Education is free and there is adequate infrastructure and trained teachers
able to support the delivery of education.

 Accessible – The education system is non-discriminatory and accessible to all, and

positive steps are taken to include the most marginalised.

 Acceptable – The content of education is relevant, non-discriminatory and culturally

appropriate, and of quality; schools are safe and teachers are professional.

 Adaptable – Education evolves with the changing needs of society and challenges
inequalities, such as gender discrimination; education adapts to suit locally specific
needs and contexts

TEXT 7 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND FREE ELECTIONS

Your voice matters. You have the right to say what you think, share information and demand a
better world. You also have the right to agree or disagree with those in power, and to express
these opinions in peaceful protests.

Exercising these rights – without fear or unlawful interference – is central to living in an open
and fair society; one in which people can access justice and enjoy their human rights.

Yet governments around the world routinely imprison people – or worse – for speaking out,
even though almost every country’s constitution refers to the value of ‘free speech’.
Governments have a duty to prohibit hateful, inciteful speech but many abuse their authority
to silence peaceful dissent by passing laws criminalizing freedom of expression. This is often
done in the name of counterterrorism, national security or religion. More recently, freedom
of expression has come under threat by authorities clamping down on activists, NGOs and
individuals helping refugees and migrants.

How governments tolerate unfavourable views or critical voices is often a good indication of
how they treat human rights generally.

Amnesty International supports people who speak out peacefully for themselves and for others
– whether a journalist reporting on violence by security forces, a trade unionist exposing poor
working conditions or an indigenous leader defending their land rights against big business.
We would similarly defend the right of those who support the positions of big business, the
security forces and employers to express their views peacefully.

Protocol 1, Article 3 requires the government to support your right to free expression

Protocol 1, Article 3 of the Human Rights Act requires the government to support your right
to free expression by holding free elections at reasonable intervals. These elections must enable
you to vote in secret.

Are there any restrictions to this right?

The right to free elections is absolute. This means it must never be restricted in any way.

However, the government can put some limits on the way elections are held. It can also decide
what kind of electoral system to have – such as ‘first past the post’, as in UK general elections,
or proportional representation.

Prisoners serving a custodial sentence in the UK do not have the right to vote. The European
Court of Human Rights has ruled that a blanket ban on all serving prisoners is not compatible
with Article 3 of Protocol 1, but that countries should have wide discretion on this matter and
that prisoners denied the vote are not entitled to compensation.

These judgments do not directly affect UK law: Parliament would still have to decide whether
and how to change the legislation on prisoner voting. A draft Bill was published in 2012 which
gave three options: a ban for prisoners sentenced to four years or more; a ban for prisoners
sentenced to more than six months; and continuation of the blanket ban. However, Parliament
has not voted on the draft Bill and the Government has not announced any other plans to
change the legislation covering the ban.
What the law says

Protocol 1, Article 3: Right to free elections

The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret
ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in
the choice of the legislature.

TEXT 8 DISCRIMINATION

Article 14 requires that all of the rights and freedoms set out in the Act must be protected and
applied without discrimination

Discrimination occurs when you are treated less favourably than another person in a similar
situation and this treatment cannot be objectively and reasonably justified. Discrimination can
also occur if you are disadvantaged by being treated the same as another person when your
circumstances are different (for example if you are disabled or pregnant).

It is important to understand that the Human Rights Act does not protect you from
discrimination in all areas of your life – there are other laws that offer more general protection,
such as the Equality Act 2010.

What the Act does do is protect you from discrimination in the enjoyment of those human
rights set out in the European Convention of Human Rights. Article 14 is based on the core
principle that all of us, no matter who we are, enjoy the same human rights and should have
equal access to them.

The protection against discrimination in the Human Rights Act is not ‘free-standing’. To rely
on this right, you must show that discrimination has affected your enjoyment of one or more
of the other rights in the Act. However, you do not need to prove that this other human right
has actually been breached.

What type of discrimination does the Act protect you from?

The Human Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on a wide range of grounds including
‘sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.

The case law relating to this right has shown that the term ‘other status’ includes sexual
orientation, illegitimacy, marital status, trade union membership, transsexual status and
imprisonment. It can also be used to challenge discrimination on the basis of age or disability.
Does the right cover indirect discrimination?

The courts have also ruled that the human rights protection from discrimination includes
indirect discrimination. This occurs when a rule or policy, supposedly applying to everyone
equally, actually works to the disadvantage of one or more groups. For example, a requirement
that all employees be over six feet tall may be indirect discrimination. Women and some
disabled people will be disadvantaged and to be justified this would need to be a strict
requirement for the job.

Using this right - example

A gay couple successfully used the anti-discrimination protection in the Act to receive the
same treatment as a heterosexual couple in relation to the rules on the inheritance of the
tenancy of a property.

Example case - R (L and others) v Manchester City Council and another case [2001]

Manchester City Council paid lower allowances to foster carers who were family members,
compared to carers who looked after children who were unrelated to them. Two families with
foster children from their own families alleged that the rates were so inadequate as to be in
conflict with the children’s welfare. They also argued that the rates were discriminatory; the
council’s failure to base calculations on the families’ financial needs showed they had not
considered the potential risk to Article 8 rights (right to respect for private and family life).
The court held that Article 8 obliged the local authority to take ‘all appropriate positive steps’
to enable children to live with their families, unless their welfare was at risk. The payment of
foster allowance fell within these positive duties and should not be done in a discriminatory
manner. There had been a disproportionate difference in treatment on grounds of ‘family
status’, which the council had failed to justify. This meant that the policy fell foul of Article 8
and Article 14.