The section below analyses the compliance of ECHR states (Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) along a time-frame and

compares the Political Terror Score with Non-ECHR states. The analysis makes
certain assumptions and does codings before employing STATA for statistical
treatment. The data which consisted of PTS score from 1976 to 2016 is shortened to
three time frames 1996, 2006 and 2016. Only few countries signed the ECHR before
1990s, and the proliferation is seen only after 1993-1994. Even then ECHR countries
with available PTS data in 1996 numbered at 14 (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Moldova, Republic of, Romania and Russian Federation). The number of
such countries increased to more than 20 in 2006 and 2016. Though 1996 data
makes no sense of inclusion, the analysis is included for two purposes; firstly, to
gauge how scarce the data availability was then and secondly, how incompatible
data makes analysis insignificant.

The analysis uses number of statistical tools like Fishers Exact Test, Chi-square
test, Linear Regression and Correlations. Fishers Exact Test (when the cell data is
less than 5) and Chi-square test (when the cell data is more than or equal to 5) are
done to find whether the nominal data interact with themselves. Linear Regression
and correlations are used for ascertaining the direction and strength of relationship.
The compliance coding is done through use of PTS score of the Amnesty
International because only that source is giving complete data without any gaps.
PTS score 1 and 2 is coded as compliance and 3-5 is coded as non-compliance. And
signatories to the ECHR is coded as 1 and non-ECHR is coded as 2. The significance
of the test is ascertained at 5% or 1% significance level.
Status of ECHR PTS~1996 PTS~2006 states:

PTS_A_1996 1.0000

PTS_A_2006 0.3157 1.0000

0.2716

PTS_A_1996
5

0
 Table 1: Showing the Correlation Coefficient between PTS Score for 1996 and 2006

The table shows that there is no significant relationship between PTS score of 1996
and 2006 (p value= 0.2716). That means 1996 data has no bearing on the 2006
data. Such an anomalous reason could be because of the scarce data in 1996
related to relatively complete data in 2006. The analysis has erased those data
where the PTS score is missing for the year.

PTS_A_2006
5
4
3
2
1
0
 PTS~2006 PTS~2016

PTS_A_2006 1.0000

PTS_A_2016 0.5069 1.0000

0.0161

PTS_A_2016
5

0
 Table 2: Showing the Correlation Coefficient between PTS Score for 2006 and 2016

The table shows that there is strong and significant relationship between PTS score
of 2006 and 2016 (r= 0.5069 and p value= 0.0161). Therefore, the PTS data of
2006 influences the data of 2016 to a considerable extent. The Adjusted- Coefficient
of Determination (R2) of the analysis is 0.2198, which means nearly 22% of the
variation of PTS score of 2016 is acted upon by the PTS score of 2006.

It is generally agreed upon that the Types of Violations in Compliance with Human
Rights Tribunals (CHRT) Dataset are not mutually exclusive. I have used the CHRT
dataset to look at how such types of violations interact with themselves. The
violations tabulated are- Physical integrity, Political and civil rights, Social,
economic, and cultural rights, Legal procedure and due process, Privacy and
property. The statistical tool used for the purpose is Fishers Exact Test (a substitute
for Chi-square test when the cell value falls below 5).
-> tabulation of physintegrity by socecon

PhysIntegr SocEcon
ity 0 1 Total

0 2,122 13 2,135
1 914 0 914

Total 3,036 13 3,049

Fisher's exact = 0.014

1-sided Fisher's exact = 0.010
Table 3: Fishers Exact Test
between Physical integrity and Social, economic, and cultural rights

There is a strong dependency between physical integrity and socio-economic right

variable with p-value at 0.01. The Null-Hypothesis is accepted in that case that the
two variables are not mutually exclusive and there would be only 1% chance that
they will not occur together.
 -> tabulation of physintegrity by lawprocedural

PhysIntegr LawProcedural
ity 0 1 Total

0 554 1,581 2,135

1 210 704 914

Total 764 2,285 3,049

Fisher's exact = 0.083

1-sided Fisher's exact = 0.045
Table 4: Fishers Exact Test
between Physical integrity and Legal procedure and due process

There is a strong independency between physical integrity and Legal procedure and
due process variable with p-value at 0.08. The Null-Hypothesis is rejected in that
case that the two variables are not mutually exclusive and there would be sufficient
-> tabulation of physintegrity by propertyprivacy
chances when they will not
occur together. PhysIntegr PropertyPrivacy
ity 0 1 Total

0 1,409 726 2,135

1 790 124 914

Total 2,199 850 3,049

Fisher's exact = 0.000

1-sided Fisher's exact = 0.000

Table 5: Fishers Exact Test between Physical integrity and Privacy and property

There is a strong dependency between physical integrity and Privacy and property
variable with p- -> tabulation of socecon by lawprocedural value at 0.00.
The Null- Hypothesis is
LawProcedural
accepted in that SocEcon 0 1 Total case that the
two variables 0 759 2,277 3,036
are not mutually
exclusive and 1 5 8 13 there would be
only 0% chance Total 764 2,285 3,049 that they will not
occur together.
Fisher's exact = 0.332
1-sided Fisher's exact = 0.207
Table 6: Fishers Exact Test between Social, economic, and cultural rights and Legal
procedure and due process
-> tabulation of socecon by propertyprivacy
There is a strong independency
PropertyPrivacy
between Social, economic, and
SocEcon 0 1 Total
cultural rights and Legal
0 2,186 850 3,036
procedure and 1 13 0 13 due process
variable with p- value at 0.33.
Total 2,199 850 3,049
The Null- Hypothesis is
Fisher's exact = 0.025
rejected in that 1-sided Fisher's exact = 0.014
case that the
two variables are not mutually
exclusive and there would be sufficient chances when they will not occur together.
In more than one-third of the time they will not occur together.

Table 7: Fishers Exact Test between Social, economic, and cultural rights and
Privacy and property

There is a strong dependency between Social, economic, and cultural rights and
Privacy and property variable with p-value at 0.02. The Null-Hypothesis is accepted
in that case that the two variables are not mutually exclusive and there would be
only 2% chance that they will not occur together.
 Table 8: Fishers Exact Test between Privacy and property and Legal procedure and
due process

There is a strong dependency between Privacy and property and Legal procedure
and due process variable with p-value at 0.00. The Null-Hypothesis is accepted in
that case that the two variables are not mutually exclusive and there would be only
0% chance that they will not occur together.

Number of complaints and Retrospective and Prospective PTS score:

Number of complaints for each of the ECHR country is extracted from the master
table. And it was found that
-> tabulation of lawprocedural by propertyprivacy
Number of complaints is
LawProcedu PropertyPrivacy
strongl(y and ral 0 1 Total positively related
to PTS Score of 2006 (r value=
0 425 339 764
0.6027 and p 1 1,774 511 2,285 value= 0.003).
But no such Total 2,199 850 3,049 relationship
exists between Number of
Fisher's exact = 0.000
Complaints and 1-sided Fisher's exact = 0.000 PTS Score of
2016 (p value= 0.299). That means those countries who have higher Political Terror
Score have more number of complaints than those with lower PTS. But complaints
have no bearing on the PTS Score in 2016, which means that the complaints have
mixed effect on the political terror scenario of countries. While some may have
. pwcorr ECHRNonECHR_1996 Compliancescore_1996, sig . tabulate ECHRNonECHR_1996 Compliancescore_1996, chi2

ECH~1996 Com~1996 ECHR/ Non- Compliance score_1996

ECHR_1996 COMPLIANC NON-COMPL Total
ECHRNon~1996 1.0000
ECHR 9 5 14
NON-ECHR 57 72 129
Complia~1996 0.1198 1.0000
0.1540 Total 66 77 143

Pearson chi2(1) = 2.0530 Pr = 0.152

. pwcorr ECHRNonECHR_2006 Compliancescore_2006, sig

move ahead in checking

ECH~2006 Com~2006 the incidences of terror in the light of complaints, some
may have not1.0000
ECHRNon~2006 paid any heed to such incidences.

Complia~2006 0.2688 1.0000

0.0008

. pwcorr ECHRNonECHR_2016 Compliancescore_2016, sig

ECH~2016 Com~2016

ECHRNon~2016 1.0000

. pwcorr PTS_A_2006 NoofcomplaintsAsof2009 PTS_A_2016, sig

Complia~2016 0.1758 1.0000
0.0262
PTS~2006 Noo~2009 PTS~2016

PTS_A_2006 1.0000
Table 9: Pairwise
Noofcom~2009 0.6027 1.0000 Correlation
0.0030
between PTS 2006, PTS
2016 and PTS_A_2016 0.5069 0.2315 1.0000 Number of
0.0161 0.2999
Complaints

Relationship with Non-ECHR states:

The section gauges the relationship between ECHR/Non-ECHR states and whether
they have complied (derived from PTS Score) with the mandate. Using data from
1996, 2006 and 2016 the analysis has employed the Pairwise Correlation and Chi-
Square techniques to check and cross-check the relationship. Both the techniques
are evaluated simultaneously to better understand the scenario.
Table 10: Pairwise Correlation and Chi-Square Test between ECHR/NON-ECHR and
COMPLIANCE, 1996

The relationship between ECHR/NON-ECHR and COMPLIANCE in 1996 is insignificant

with p value 0.1540 and p value for Chi-Square is 0.152. Therefore, it can be
deduced that despite checking twice it is found that whether a state complied with
the mandate does not depend on whether the particular state was signatory to
ECHR.
. pwcorr ECHRNonECHR_1996 Compliancescore_1996, sig

ECH~1996 Com~1996

Table 11: Pairwise

ECHRNon~1996
Correlation and Chi-Square Test between ECHR/NON-ECHR and
1.0000

COMPLIANCE, 2006
Complia~1996 0.1198 1.0000
0.1540
The relationship between ECHR/NON-ECHR and COMPLIANCE in 2006 is highly
. pwcorr ECHRNonECHR_2006 Compliancescore_2006, sig . tabulate ECHRNonECHR_2006 Compliancescore_2006, chi2

ECH~2006 Com~2006 ECHR/ Non- Compliance score_2006

ECHR_2006 COMPLIANC NON-COMPL Total

ECHRNon~2006 1.0000 ECHR 16 6 22

NON-ECHR 46 85 131

Complia~2006 0.2688 1.0000 Total 62 91 153

0.0008
Pearson chi2(1) = 11.0566 Pr = 0.001

significant with p value 0.0008 and p

. pwcorr ECHRNonECHR_2016 Compliancescore_2016, sig
value for Chi-Square is 0.001. Though the Correlation Coefficient for the relationship
ECH~2016 Com~2016
is weak (r=0.26) there is a considerable interaction which could be held
ECHRNon~2016 1.0000
accountable. Therefore, it can be deduced that after checking twice it is convinced
that whether 0.1758
Complia~2016 a state1.0000
complied with the mandate does depend on whether the
0.0262
particular state was signatory to ECHR.
 ECH~2006 Com~2006

ECHRNon~2006 1.0000

Complia~2006 0.2688 1.0000

0.0008

. pwcorr ECHRNonECHR_2016 Compliancescore_2016, sig . tabulate ECHRNonECHR_2016 Compliancescore_2016, chi2

ECHR/ Non- Compliance score_2016

ECH~2016 Com~2016
ECHR_2016 COMPLIANC NON-COMPL Total

ECHRNon~2016 1.0000 ECHR 16 7 23

NON-ECHR 61 76 137

Complia~2016 0.1758 1.0000 Total 77 83 160

0.0262
Pearson chi2(1) = 4.9460 Pr = 0.026

Table 12: Pairwise Correlation and Chi-

Square Test between ECHR/NON-ECHR and COMPLIANCE, 2016

The relationship between ECHR/NON-ECHR and COMPLIANCE in 2016 is quite

significant with p value 0.0262 and p value for Chi-Square is 0.026. Though the
Correlation Coefficient for the relationship is weak (r=0.17 there is a considerable
interaction which could be held accountable. Therefore, it can be deduced that after
checking twice it is convinced that whether a state complied with the mandate does
depend on whether the particular state was signatory to ECHR. The reason for
having a weaker relationship than 2006 is due to increase in awareness and
accountability on part of the national governments irrespective of whether they
have signed ECHR or any other instrument like that.

Conclusion:

The study concludes with a convincing statement that the ECHR states have shown
improvement over time. Though some have stayed at the compliance score since
beginning, some have moved from non-compliance to compliance score over a span
of a decade. After checking all the statistical assumptions and normality tests the
data was treated through number of statistical treatments. And it was found that
the compliance score of any nation depends largely upon whether they are
signatory to ECHR. However the correlation is getting feeble because of the strong
consensus developing among the nations about curtailing the terror of all sort. Such
a consensus is irrespective of whether they are signatory to European Convention of
Human Rights (and the Court) or any other instrument.