This is nothing to do with human rights. It's about whether judges, rather than Parliament, should be able to decide who votes in UK elections. What on earth is the point of Parliament if its sovereignty can be usurped like this?
This has all arisen after the despicable John Hirst (who served 25 years for axing a woman to death) took the issue to the Court of Human Rights. Pity he never thought about the human right to live of the woman he killed, eh?
The Observer speculates that the government may try to limit the right to vote to those it believes have been successfully rehabilitated. I can see the logic of that, but it's surely impossible for a law to be framed in such a subjective way.