Denial of Justice

Denial of justice refers to situations where a governmental or judicial body refuses to grant an individual or group their rightful access to fair, adequate, and complete legal treatment. In Switzerland, for instance, this phenomenon is particularly prevalent, as the country has not ratified key additional protocols to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) that would provide comprehensive protection against discrimination, at least on paper. As a result, in most cases, there is no legal recourse against denial of justice in Switzerland. Denial of justice can occur actively, by explicitly rejecting applications or complaints, or passively, by failing to take necessary actions or by delaying decisions that prevent the resolution of legal matters.

Psychological Impact on Those Affected:

The psychological effects of denial of justice can be profound. Individuals may feel powerless and helpless, as their fundamental right to justice and legal equality is withheld. This can lead to chronic stress, anxiety, depression, and deep mistrust toward state institutions. Over time, it may also result in a sense of alienation from society and a loss of faith in the rule of law.

State Entities Where Denial of Justice Can Occur:

Courts and Judicial Authorities: Denial of justice can occur when judges or court officials delay proceedings, unjustifiably reject applications, or fail to treat parties fairly.
Administrative Bodies: Government agencies may commit denial of justice by failing to process legitimate applications, withholding information, or delaying decisions without justification.
Legislative Bodies: Lawmakers can indirectly commit denial of justice by passing laws that deliberately disadvantage certain groups or restrict fundamental rights.
Police and Security Forces: When investigations are intentionally not conducted or are obstructed, or when complaints are not taken seriously, this can be seen as denial of justice.

Possible Motives Behind Denial of Justice:

Abuse of Power: Individual officials or institutions may exploit their position to disadvantage certain groups or to maintain or expand personal power.
Corruption: Denial of justice may be driven by bribery or other forms of corruption, where decisions are made in favor of certain interests or individuals.
Incompetence or Ignorance: Often, a lack of competence or knowledge is the reason for faulty legal treatment. In such cases, denial of justice occurs not out of malice, but due to a lack of qualification or being overwhelmed by the situation.
Bureaucratic Obstacles: Complex and inefficient bureaucratic processes can also lead to denial of justice, especially when applications and procedures become bogged down in endless processes.
Discrimination: Denial of justice may also be rooted in prejudice and discrimination, particularly when specific ethnic, religious, or social groups are systematically disadvantaged.

Assessment of the Frequency of Incompetence, Ignorance, and Corruption as Causes:

Incompetence and Ignorance: These causes are likely more common in countries with underdeveloped judicial systems or in regions suffering from staff shortages and poor training. In such contexts, unintentional denial of justice can easily occur, though it still has severe consequences for those affected.
Corruption: Corruption as a cause of denial of justice varies significantly from country to country. In nations with high levels of corruption, the likelihood of denial of justice due to corrupt practices is much greater. Here, decisions are often deliberately made to undermine the rule of law in order to secure personal or political gain.

Conclusion:

Denial of justice is a serious issue that can significantly erode trust in the rule of law and the integrity of state institutions. It can arise from both deliberate actions, such as corruption and discrimination, and unintentional causes, such as incompetence and bureaucracy. The psychological impact on those affected is severe and can lead to long-term damage. It is crucial to promote the rule of law, legal certainty, and transparency in all state entities to prevent denial of justice in all its forms.

zurich / ChatGPT-4o

Insights Soon on this Blog:

The Internet and the Mobification of Society
Understanding Switzerland: "Sauhäfeli, Saudeckeli"
Why the Swiss Legal System is Biased
Why Switzerland is Overrated
Caged by Bureaucracy

SMALL SWITZERLAND: GAPS IN THE MEDIA COVERAGE

In most of its scandals,

Switzerland proves to be too small,
and its elite too tightly interconnected (due to Switzerland’s small size, everyone is practically on top of each other),

for its media to report independently and objectively. At best, one receives politically tinted reports and reports that blatantly reveal who is good friends with whom. Switzerland is simply too small to be independent in its media reporting.

Swiss Media Landscape: Manageable Political Blocks

The Swiss media landscape is neatly divided into political blocks, with the bourgeois block having the far greatest media reach.

Most media are thoroughly entangled with politics and the economy, and with their particular interests.

This division of the media into political blocks should at least ensure that the different political currents of the country are balanced. One would think that for every scandal, there would be a publication interested in reporting it from the perspective of their political masters. But this is not the case. Switzerland is simply too small: there are too few editorially independent media that would cover everything that is objectively considered a scandal in an independent and neutral manner. Too many Swiss media report selectively and distort reality according to the agenda of their paymasters. And too often, this agenda is a bourgeois one. In these editorial offices, reports about grievances, which at least people with a social value attitude would consider grievances, simply do not fit. Such reports are not of interest. Much more interesting are reports that reflect the vain interests of the bourgeoisie. The same phenomenon occurs, in the opposite direction of course, in the few Swiss media with a left-wing profile.

Coverage of Public Interest through Media Diversity

In a large country with a colorful, diverse media landscape, there would surely be a paper for every politically colored scandal. Right-wing papers are interested in the scandals of the Left and vice versa, the papers of the Left in the scandals of the Rich. Thus, the media landscapes of Western countries once comprehensively covered the public interest with reports from various political viewpoints. In Switzerland, this coverage does not work because the Swiss media landscape is one-sidedly right-leaning and reports in a one-sidedly right-leaning filtered manner. The few remaining editorially independent and left-leaning media lack the capacity to counterbalance the one-sidedness of the Swiss media landscape due to their marginalization. Therefore, reports that would be standard for publication in other countries are often overlooked in Swiss media.

Gaps in the Spectrum

Firstly, Swiss media houses fail to fully cover the political spectrum. Almost all of them revel in the bourgeois, right-wing corner. Secondly, reports on matters that do not clearly align with the agenda of a Swiss media house stand no chance of being published. If neither distinctly bourgeois nor distinctly left-wing media pick up a story, it simply falls through the gaps in the spectrum of Swiss media coverage. And no one is interested. Because no one cares. Why should they?

The Primitive Relationship of Switzerland to the ECHR

Switzerland has signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). So far, so good? However, Switzerland has not signed the Additional Protocol to the ECHR that provides effective protection against discrimination. In this regard, Switzerland is in the “good company” of France and the United Kingdom, which also have not signed this protocol. As a result, the scope of discrimination protection under the ECHR for Switzerland is limited to the articles of the ECHR itself. This means that cases of discrimination related to Swiss federal law, cantonal, or municipal laws—which account for the majority of discrimination cases—cannot be brought before the European Court of Human Rights. What would officially be considered a violation of human rights in the sense of discrimination in any civilized European country, cannot, regrettably, be considered “isolated cases” in Switzerland. Rather, discriminatory denials of rights and abuses of law, to name just two examples from the arsenal of discrimination, are commonplace in Switzerland. If the Swiss can afford outright discrimination hunts on minorities, considered regressive in every civilized culture, then we should not hesitate to call Swiss culture primitive by name.