Originally Posted by El Loro:
Article 60
Nothing in this Convention shall be construed as limiting or derogating from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which may be ensured under the laws of any High Contracting Party or under any other agreement to which it is a Party.
A High Contracting Party are the official representatives of each member state. That would seem to give the right to individual countries to have laws which override what is included in the Convention. So why doesn't the UK government use Article 60 to deal with this?
I had to reread this a couple of times, but I think I've got it now...
What I believe Article 60 is saying is that the Convention defines the minimum requirements that member states must meet. That means that the UK, as a member, must allow prisoners the right to vote.
However what Article 60 also means is that if a member state wants to go beyond those rights (by, for example, also allowing prisoners to stand for Parliament), then that's fine: the Convention doesn't define an upper limit.
Basically, the ECHR's job is to give freedoms to those who don't have them; not take them away from those who do.
BTW: I don't think anyone-else has mentioned this, but this thread's title is misleading. The ECHR is not trying to overrule the UK Government. As a member state, the UK is bound to abide by ECHR rulings. It's the UK Government that's trying to overrule the ECHR...