WITH REGARD TO INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, IS GENERAL FORCED CONFINEMENT (CFG) LEGAL? France's disregard of the principle of proportionality.
The Human Rights Institutes, the Paris Bar Association and European Lawyers (IDHBP and IDHAE) to inform citizens about the importance of their most supreme rights through a Report. Also to question the compatibility of the infringement of these rights with France's obligations under its Constitution and the principle of proportionality in international law, which limit and control the power of States.
When faced with a health emergency, a State cannot rely exclusively on scientists to assess the health risk. It must also call on legal experts to assess the legal risk of infringements of fundamental rights. The lack of this dual assessment makes a genuine proportionality check impossible.
In Germany, many lawyers, whose role is central, are very attentive to ensuring that freedoms are respected. In particular, it is important to ensure that the measures taken to combat the pandemic do not upset the institutional balance. That was why the Federal Government had never raised the possibility of resorting to a state of emergency.
In France, the government has not assessed the legal risks linked to the implementation of the forced confinement. No authority competent to protect fundamental rights has been consulted. Neither the opinion of the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH), which advises the Government and Parliament on fundamental rights, nor that of the Human Rights Ombudsman, who is responsible for defending the rights of citizens in their dealings with the authorities, has been sought. Nor that of experts specialized in fundamental rights (professors or lawyers).