This can be seen in areas wherein the Court has found a violation by another state but wherein a similar problem still exists in Estonia – e.g., in relation to prisoners’ voting rights.
Estonia ratified the Convention on 13 March 1996 and it became binding for Estonia as of 16 April 1996.The Convention is an integral part of the Estonian legal order; it is positioned above any other legal act in the hierarchy of legal sources in Estonia except the Constitution of the Republic, adopted by the Estonian people on 28 June 1992.The status of an international treaty is regulated by §123 of the Estonian Constitution, which stipulates that Estonia shall not enter into international treaties that are in conflict with the Constitution.It was a big step towards democracy and an important milestone in the protection of human rights in Estonia because the death penalty was previously provided by national law, although it had for the very last time been executed in September 1991, when re-independent Estonia was only about a month old. 12 to the Convention, about the general prohibition of discrimination, although it signed the Protocol on 4 November 2000. 15, adopted on 24 June 2013, was signed by Estonia on 22 October 2013 and ratified on 30 April 2014. 16, adopted on 2 October 2013 and aimed at enhancing the dialogue between the Court and national courts in the framework of non‑binding advisory opinions, has been signed by Estonia (on 17 February 2014) but is not yet ratified as of January 2015.The death penalty was then replaced by life imprisonment. 13 to the Convention, concerning the abolition of the death penalty in all circumstances (CETS No. Formally, in Estonia the Convention is seen as a ratified international treaty.It then shows in more detail the impact of the case law of the Strasbourg Court on Estonia’s legislature, executive power, and judiciary and examines the case law pertaining in particular to the historical past, deprivation of liberty, prison conditions, fair trial and length of proceedings, retroactivity, and lack of foreseeability of criminal law, along with the case law on pluralism and civil rights, especially freedom of expression.