In a few weeks in Moldova, there will be a key moment for that human rights system. Political leaders of Europe will meet to consider a Political Declaration relating to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). A draft text has been prepared by legal experts, but political leaders must now decide its final form - one that will affect the rights of 700 million people across the continent.

The background to this summit is a political initiative of nine States initially led by Denmark (which later grew to a grouping of 27 states, including Ireland), that expressed concern about how rulings of the European Court of Human Rights affect migration policy. Denmark asserted that the court applications of the ECHR are preventing them from deporting foreigners convicted of criminal offences.

What has unfolded over that time is an intense struggle between contemporary politics of migration and the judicial protection of rights. It is important to emphasise that the ECHR itself makes clear that regulation of migration is primarily a matter for national governments. Migration law and policy is a matter of high public importance and robust political discussion on migration is necessary as part of our democratic discourse.

However, political actors who would diminish or interfere with foundational human rights have a responsibility to the truth. In an ever more complex political environment, we see a growing trend of presenting fallacies as facts and creating scapegoats and strawmen to replace honest analysis of complex problems.

Over the past ten months, the Council of Europe has effectively refuted the factual basis of the Danish complaint. In reality there are relatively few cases on migration before the European Court of Human Rights, and significant deference is given to national courts’ decision-making on migration.

The doctrine of separation of powers has served us well and we should also be wary of any attempt by a government or group of governments to blame courts or to tell judges what to do – whether at the national or European level. There is a thin line between governments voicing political concerns, and governments seeking to influence or even apply pressure to courts.

It is also important to note that as this process has unfolded, the political context has shifted. The original initiative for a Political Declaration about the ECHR was hatched in the specific anti-migrant politics of Denmark, Italy and later the UK. Now in at least Britain and Denmark those political dynamics have changed – and there is rising unease among voters about their policies on migration.

These shifting political winds speak of an important truth. We should always be wary of attempts to alter foundational rights because of temporary political pressures. At the national level, we have safeguards against constitutional change for precisely this reason.

We in Ireland should have special reason to guard the ECHR against fickle political threats given its role as the foundation of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Without the ECHR at its core, the Good Friday Agreement would not exist. The Convention provides the values of equality and respect which run throughout all parts of the Agreement. The Agreement also required the UK to give legal effect to the ECHR in British law – which it did in 1999 and Ireland followed in 2003.

By linking peace to the ECHR, the two governments gave a central role to an independent set of legal standards above their control, and therefore acceptable to both communities. This guarantee of rights and equality created a climate of trust which enabled progress on highly contentious questions, such as policing reform, release of prisoners, and most of all on national identity and culture.

The history of Northern Ireland in the period since the Agreement tells us that the architecture of human rights must be jealousy protected. That is why the Irish government has placed a strong emphasis on defending human rights guaranteed in the Agreement and under the ECHR when they have been threatened by Brexit and by initiatives such as the UK's Legacy Act.

It will always be tempting to remove rights at times of heightened controversy for short term political goals, but it at these moments that defending principles of rights takes on greater importance. We do not underestimate the scale and complexity of the challenge States currently face in responding to changing migration patterns in a way that balances national interests and human rights obligations. But the answer to these challenges cannot be to gut human rights or to undermine the rule of law.

In the weeks ahead, political leaders across Europe will have to decide if they stand by human rights or if they are willing to weaken those rights for shifting political pressures. Given our rich tradition of human rights, and our deep national interest in defending the rights protections which have brought us peace and stability, we hope that Ireland will play a positive and constructive role in this process. While as a society we may not have fully achieved the aspirations of the Proclamation, the ideals of equality and human rights which it sets out remain fundamental to who we are.

Liam Herrick is Chief Commissioner of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.