{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02169421487603306, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014462809917355372, 'mean_word_length': 4.872727272727273, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Strasbourg, the House of Lords or Elected Politicians: Who Decides About Rights after Re P?

In Re P, the House of Lords decided that art 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which prohibited unmarried couples from being eligible to adopt, violated articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Apart from its significance for adoption law and anti-discrimination law, Re P is also important in understanding the constitutional role of the courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Re P recognizes that if Strasbourg has determined that an issue falls within states' margin of appreciation, this does not prevent municipal courts from enforcing those rights. This comment will discuss the meaning and scope of the courts' obligation under section 2 of the HRA, the status of the rights protected by the HRA and the appropriate role of the courts in a rights dispute which is subject to moral, social, religious or political controversy.