Tokens: The
operative
word
here
,
in
the
present
context
,
is
"
defined
"
;
and
in
consequence
,
the
effect
of
this
provision
-
(
since
it
is
rights
and
freedoms
"
defined
"
in
the
Convention
that
the
States
parties
to
it
are
to
secure
to
everyone
within
their
jurisdiction
)
-
is
to
exclude
from
that
obligation
anything
not
so
defined
.
Therefore
,
even
if
,
in
order
to
avoid
relying
on
what
might
be
regarded
as
a
technicality
,
one
refrains
from
attempting
a
"
definition
of
defining
"
,
as
compared
with
,
say
,
mentioning
,
indicating
,
or
specifying[15
]
,
the
question
necessarily
arises
whether
a
right
or
freedom
that
is
not
even
mentioned
,
indicated
or
specified
,
but
merely
-
at
the
most
-
implied
,
can
be
said
to
be
one
that
is
"
defined
"
in
the
Convention
in
any
sense
that
can
reasonably
be
attributed
to
the
term
"
defined
"
?
In
my
opinion
,
not
;
and
on
this
question
I
am
in
entire
agreement
with
the
views
expressed
by
my
colleague
Judge
von
Verdross
.
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