alleged breach took place wholly before the new Treaty came into force. The Court, having decided that the 1926 Treaty was not given retrospective effect, corn:Iuded that it was. impossible to hold that any of its provisions were deemed to have been in force earlier. 16. The European Commission on Human Rights also recognized that this principle of non-retrospectivity of statutes and treaties is generally applicable to all inte1national jurisdictions. This was in the case of De Becker, case No. 214/56 decided on 9 June 1958, see Annual Index Vol. II p. 231. 17. In the instant case Counsel did not say how the Supplement.ary Protocol, expressly or impliedly, was given retrospective effect. The thrust of their argument is that the Supple~1entaiy Protocol is procedural hi nature and effect and for that reason it has retrospective effect in law. 18. In the case of Barbieri vs Morris,. Mo; 315 S.W. 2d 711 at page 714, it was said that retroactive laws are generally defined from a legal viewpoint as those "."hich take away or impair vested rights acquire? u11der existing laws, create new obligations, impose a new duty or ·attach a new disability in .respect to the transactions or considerations already past. In other words it is . . ' a law that is intended to act on things, which are past. 19. Another impo1tant definition is to be found in the case of Bear Val Mutual Water Co. vs. San Bernardino County, 242 Cal.App. 2d, 68, where .it was stated that a retrospective law is one which looks backward or contemplates the past, one which is made to affect acts or facts occuning, or rights accn1ing, before it came into force. Every statute, which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws> or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in resp~ct of transactions or considerations already past. One which relates back to a 6 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm