The 'convention' is the set of rules set out in the treaty that established that convention and was signed by GB with most of Europe almost immediately upon the conclusion of war in Europe in 1945 and has absolutely no connection with the current European Union. It is this convention that Tony Blair saw fit to ratify into our own dear Human Rights Act 1989.
The 'Court' is where disputes or challenges are heard and the judgments are known as 'opinions of the court'. It is then normal practice for losing defendants i.e. the nations brought before the court' to correct their behaviour and enact a law to comply. This court does not issue sentances such as Fines or send government ministers to prison. Much like a tribunal, it simply direct a course of action. It is such a judgment that led to the Gender Recognition Act 1994!
You then ask why the RLT if we are then not treated as the gender we present as? Good question and again it is interpretation of statute law. As a pre-op, I may have presented myself as female but in reality and 'in law', I remained male based upon physical and documentary evidence. Any authorites and/or public bodies are within the law if they refuse to acknowledge your assertions of gender at this point. As a post-op, I can now present in full confidence as female and no-one can do a jot about it. Now, the RLT is a diabolical regime imposed upon us and I would argue that it is 50 years out of date and takes no notice of current medical opinion and of course the law!! I am not defending or making excuses for or against anything or trying to muddle matters.
I am sorry Esther if I have been too detailed but I hope I have explained at least some of the thinking behind some of the decisions taken regards circumstances reported. We are all in a no-mans/woman's land in this respect because society thinks binary gender and cannot see the 'grey areas' of human sexuality and gender identity.
[/color]
