Resolution ResDH(2000)155
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 10 October 2000
in the case of McDaid, Ward, Giles, Leece, Shorters and Thwaites against the United Kingdom
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 December 2000
at the 732nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the final judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the McDaid, Ward, Giles, Leece, Shorters and Thwaites case delivered on 10 October 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on the same date under Article 44 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in six applications (Nos. 34822/97, 34957/97, 34988/97, 35575/97, 35576/97 and 35578/97) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 11, 18 and 19 February and 9 April 1997 respectively, under previous Article 25 of the Convention by Mr James McDaid, Mr Shane Ward, Mr Stephen Giles, Mr James Leece, Mr Tracey Shorters and Mr Kevin Thwaites, six British nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible their complaints concerning the lack of independence and impartiality of a court-martial as well as the unfairness of the proceedings before it;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Government of the respondent State on 27 September 1999;
Whereas in its judgment of 10 October 2000 the Court, after having taken formal note of a friendly settlement reached by the Government of the respondent State and the applicants, and having been satisfied that the settlement was based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols, decided, unanimously to strike the case out of its list;
Whereas under the above-mentioned friendly settlement it was agreed that the Government of the United Kingdom would pay to each applicant 750 pounds sterling in respect of costs and expenses;
Recalling that Rule 44, paragraph 2, of the Rules of the Court provides that the striking out of a case shall be effected by means of a judgment which the President shall forward to the Committee of Ministers once it has become final in order to allow it to supervise, in accordance with Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention, the execution of any undertakings which may have been attached to the discontinuance or solution of the matter;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of previous Article 54 which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases transmitted to it under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State recalled that general measures had already been taken, notably through the modification of the provisions in the Army Act 1955 by the Armed Forces Act 1996 which entered into force on 1 April 1997, (see Resolutions DH (98) 11 and DH (98) 12 in the Coyne and Findlay cases against the United Kingdom), and indicated that the Court’s judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of the respondent State had paid the applicants the sums provided for in the friendly settlement, payment confirmed by a letter dated 8 August 2000,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy