“Hands Off the Referee”: Civil society says political pressure on human rights courts risks damaging the ECHR system

May 15, 2026

Civil society organisations in the UK and Ireland are concerned that the new Council of Europe political declaration on migration released on the 15^th May at a Council of Ministers summit in Moldova reflects a growing pattern of political pressure on how human rights are interpreted and applied.

While the declaration reaffirms commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights, it places much greater emphasis on how States expect rights to be applied in practice, particularly in migration cases.

This is reflected in how governments are presenting the declaration. The UK Government has described it as creating what it calls an “updated interpretation of Articles 3 and 8 of the ECHR” and said it will support “a more modern interpretation” to help courts ensure that people cannot “avoid deportation.” It has framed this as part of “reforming the way the ECHR is interpreted” and suggested the declaration will “help courts interpret how the ECHR is applied” in line with government priorities.

This highlights a clear and troubling contradiction. The European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts are independent and cannot be directed by governments on how to interpret the law. Framing political agreements as a way to reshape how courts apply rights blurs the line between independent legal judgment and political expectation. This is a dangerous development, because it normalises political pressure on what should remain an impartial and independent process. This reflects wider concerns raised by experts that the process risks placing improper pressure on the Court and narrowing protections over time.

For people in the UK and Ireland, this matters. The Convention is not abstract. It shapes everyday rights in areas like policing, healthcare, housing and access to justice. Where courts are placed under pressure, even indirectly, to defer more to government decisions or apply higher thresholds before protections apply, there is a real risk that rights become harder to access in practice.

There is also little evidence to support the idea that existing human rights protections are preventing deportations in practice. Research from the University of Oxford’s Bonavero Institute has found that successful human rights-based appeals against deportation are rare. Available data shows that only around 0.7% of foreign national offenders succeeded in preventing deportation on human rights grounds, with similar rates remaining very low over time.

There is also a wider concern about precedent. Once rights are treated as conditional for one group such as migrants or refugees, that approach can spread, making protections less secure for everyone over time.

In Northern Ireland in particular, the risks are especially serious. The European Convention is woven into the Good Friday Agreement and underpins rights protections that have been central to peace and stability. Any attempt to weaken, reinterpret or selectively apply those rights risks undermining that foundation.

In the Republic of Ireland, the Convention also plays a central role in guiding legislation and public decision making. A shift toward a more restrictive or politically influenced approach to interpreting rights risks weakening safeguards that people rely on in their everyday interactions with the State.

This declaration does not change the law overnight. But it reflects a clear trend towards greater political pressure on courts, more restrictive approaches to rights, and a move away from the principle that human rights apply equally to everyone.

Kevin Hanratty, Director of the Human Rights Consortium, said: “In Northern Ireland, the European Convention on Human Rights is part of the foundation of our constitutional settlement. It is essential that courts remain independent and free from political pressure in how they apply those rights. Trying to influence how courts interpret those rights is like trying to intimidate a referee in a football match. The rules are clear, and the referee’s job is to apply them fairly and independently. Governments should leave the courts to do their job. This approach risks eroding the strength and resilience of the Convention system over time. The more governments seek to shape how rights are interpreted through political processes, the greater the pressure on a system that depends on independence to function effectively.”

Eilis Barry, Chief Executive of FLAC, said: “It is concerning that the declaration is seeking to influence the European Court of Human Rights on its interpretation in relation to the human rights of certain categories of people. This would appear to be a move away from the idea of universal human rights which is the foundation of the ECHR.  The evidence simply does not support the narrative that human rights law is preventing deportations in any widespread way. When political processes begin to shape how those rights are understood, it undermines confidence in the European Court of Human Rights Court which is supposed to act  as a safeguard for individuals whose rights and freedoms are not secured at the national level.”

We suggest that if governments are serious about improving how national courts engage with Strasbourg, the Declaration itself points to a practical and principled route forward by encouraging states to consider ratifying Protocol No. 16 to the Convention. This mechanism enables courts to seek guidance on complex questions of human rights law, strengthening dialogue without compromising judicial independence. Political declarations that appear to signal preferred outcomes risk doing the opposite. We therefore urge the UK and Ireland to follow this recommendation, ratify Protocol No. 16, and embed it domestically as a constructive alternative.