Are the McCann's playing games ?

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14880-goncalo-amaral-s-life-is-still-on-hold#380324

No, the McCanns are fighting for their lives (figuratively)
Any trick, dirty or otherwise is worth a try.

The following comes from the same source....

19- Who can bring a case to the Court? The Convention makes a distinction between two types of application: individual applications lodged by any person, group of individuals, company or NGO having a complaint about a violation of their rights, and inter-State applications brought by one State against another. Since the Court was established, almost all applications have been lodged by individuals who have brought their cases directly to the Court alleging one or more violations of the Convention

22- What is the difference between an individual application and an inter-State application? Most applications before the Court are individual applications lodged by private persons. A State may also lodge an application against another State Party to the Convention; this is called an inter-State application

33- Can the Court order interim measures? When the Court receives an application it may decide that a State should take certain measures provisionally while it continues its examination of the case. This usually consists of requesting a State to refrain from doing something, such as not returning individuals to countries where it is alleged that they would face death or torture.

From the above it could well be that the McCanns have lodged a challenge against the State of Portugal with the E.C.H.R. It may well be that the E.C.H.R. has issued an interim order which maintains the status quo until it returns a verdict.


As I suggested a while ago, and I still stand by that opinion, the McCann's are trying delaying tactics, knowing full well that any case has to be accepted, and then if it was, a long delay before going before any case would go to court, and the financial payouts are small.

Also, the E.C.H.R. cannot impose any decision on a country, so what place would an interim order have. What seems more likely is the renowned slowness of the Portuguese Court system.

The McCann's cannot say their rights were violated as they went to court and lost, and they have placed themselves repeatedly in the public eye through the media.

Admin wrote:The following comes from the same source....

19- Who can bring a case to the Court? The Convention makes a distinction between two types of application: individual applications lodged by any person, group of individuals, company or NGO having a complaint about a violation of their rights, and inter-State applications brought by one State against another. Since the Court was established, almost all applications have been lodged by individuals who have brought their cases directly to the Court alleging one or more violations of the Convention

22- What is the difference between an individual application and an inter-State application? Most applications before the Court are individual applications lodged by private persons. A State may also lodge an application against another State Party to the Convention; this is called an inter-State application

33- Can the Court order interim measures? When the Court receives an application it may decide that a State should take certain measures provisionally while it continues its examination of the case. This usually consists of requesting a State to refrain from doing something, such as not returning individuals to countries where it is alleged that they would face death or torture.

From the above it could well be that the McCanns have lodged a challenge against the State of Portugal with the E.C.H.R. It may well be that the E.C.H.R. has issued an interim order which maintains the status quo until it returns a verdict.


As I suggested a while ago, and I still stand by that opinion, the McCann's are trying delaying tactics, knowing full well that any case has to be accepted, and then if it was, a long delay before going before any case would go to court, and the financial payouts are small.

Also, the E.C.H.R. cannot impose any decision on a country, so what place would an interim order have. What seems more likely is the renowned slowness of the Portuguese Court system.

The McCann's cannot say their rights were violated as they went to court and lost, and they have placed themselves repeatedly in the public eye through the media.

I would just like to clarify that the ECHR is not required to accept any case, most often they reject most of them.  AFAIK, even though the McCanns have filed a case with the ECHR, it has not bearing on the recent verdict and they still have to pay. I find it scandalous that Gonçalo's assets are still frozen! As for a possible interim order Tthe ECHR cannot change a verdict and in this case the McCanns do not risk torture or being put to death. Furthermore, if any decision were made in favour of the McCanns, the Portuguese state would have to pay compensation, not Gonçalo!!

Montclair wrote:

Admin wrote:The following comes from the same source....

19- Who can bring a case to the Court? The Convention makes a distinction between two types of application: individual applications lodged by any person, group of individuals, company or NGO having a complaint about a violation of their rights, and inter-State applications brought by one State against another. Since the Court was established, almost all applications have been lodged by individuals who have brought their cases directly to the Court alleging one or more violations of the Convention

22- What is the difference between an individual application and an inter-State application? Most applications before the Court are individual applications lodged by private persons. A State may also lodge an application against another State Party to the Convention; this is called an inter-State application

33- Can the Court order interim measures? When the Court receives an application it may decide that a State should take certain measures provisionally while it continues its examination of the case. This usually consists of requesting a State to refrain from doing something, such as not returning individuals to countries where it is alleged that they would face death or torture.

From the above it could well be that the McCanns have lodged a challenge against the State of Portugal with the E.C.H.R. It may well be that the E.C.H.R. has issued an interim order which maintains the status quo until it returns a verdict.


As I suggested a while ago, and I still stand by that opinion, the McCann's are trying delaying tactics, knowing full well that any case has to be accepted, and then if it was, a long delay before going before any case would go to court, and the financial payouts are small.

Also, the E.C.H.R. cannot impose any decision on a country, so what place would an interim order have. What seems more likely is the renowned slowness of the Portuguese Court system.

The McCann's cannot say their rights were violated as they went to court and lost, and they have placed themselves repeatedly in the public eye through the media.

I would just like to clarify that the ECHR is not required to accept any case, most often they reject most of them.  AFAIK, even though the McCanns have filed a case with the ECHR, it has not bearing on the recent verdict and they still have to pay. I find it scandalous that Gonçalo's assets are still frozen! As for a possible interim order Tthe ECHR cannot change a verdict and in this case the McCanns do not risk torture or being put to death. Furthermore, if any decision were made in favour of the McCanns, the Portuguese state would have to pay compensation, not Gonçalo!!

I totally agree with your post Montclair.

The Supreme court case is over. Any 'case' would be against the state of Portugal, and Amaral would bare no financial cost. So, if it is true, why have his assets remained frozen ?

I am not aware of any other case against him per se, that would require the freezing of his financial assets.

The following was posted on the Havern forum.

'I agree with your summary and can see no credible grounds for a challenge to the Portuguese Supreme court's ruling at the ECHR. That leaves the possibility that the manoeuvre is cunning and tactical, intended to delay payment of costs and continue for as long as possible to apply pressure to Mr Amaral (in which case it's a further waste of money anyway), or simply foolish, inspired by wounded self-importance and the persuasion of lawyers ever keen to milk a cash cow. If it's the latter, it would not be the first time the Mccanns have been conned out of some of the money so generously given for the search for Madeleine. Kevin Halligen took them for several hundred thousand, Bell Pottinger for half a million, the website developer for 30,000+, and that's only what I can call to mind without looking things up.'

Admin wrote:The following was posted on the Havern forum.

'I agree with your summary and can see no credible grounds for a challenge to the Portuguese Supreme court's ruling at the ECHR. That leaves the possibility that the manoeuvre is cunning and tactical, intended to delay payment of costs and continue for as long as possible to apply pressure to Mr Amaral (in which case it's a further waste of money anyway), or simply foolish, inspired by wounded self-importance and the persuasion of lawyers ever keen to milk a cash cow. If it's the latter, it would not be the first time the Mccanns have been conned out of some of the money so generously given for the search for Madeleine. Kevin Halligen took them for several hundred thousand, Bell Pottinger for half a million, the website developer for 30,000+, and that's only what I can call to mind without looking things up.'

Has it been confirmed by Sr Amaral that this is the case? The money those two have made from their daughters 'disappearance' is quite nauseating. How anyone can defend them and their behaviour is beyond me.