Tokens: 30
.
The
foregoing
questions
may
be
rhetorical
in
their
form
:
they
are
not
rhetorical
in
substance
.
They
serve
to
show
the
need
for
a
definition
of
access
to
the
courts
as
a
right
or
freedom
,
and
hence
that
,
the
Convention
containing
none
,
this
particular
right
or
freedom
is
not
amongst
those
which
its
Article
1
(
art
.
1
)
obliges
the
contracting
States
to
secure
to
those
within
their
respective
jurisdictions
.
To
put
the
matter
in
another
way
,
the
parties
can
not
be
expected
to
implement
what
would
be
an
important
international
obligation
when
it
is
not
defined
sufficiently
to
enable
them
to
know
exactly
what
it
involves
-
indeed
is
not
defined
at
all
because
(
in
so
far
as
it
exists
)
it
rests
on
an
implication
that
is
never
particularized
or
spelt
out
.
The
fleeting
,
and
scarcely
comprehensible[18
]
,
references
contained
in
paragraphs
28
and
38
(
first
section
)
of
the
Court
’s
Judgment
to
the
question
of
a
definition
,
as
it
arises
by
virtue
of
Article
1
(
art
.
1
)
of
the
Convention
,
are
in
no
way
an
adequate
substitute
for
a
considered
discussion
of
the
matter
,
which
the
Judgment
wholly
fails
to
provide
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O