Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)129[1]
Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Quinn and Heaney & McGuinness against Ireland
(Application No. 36887/97 and 34720/97, judgments of 21 December 2000, final on 21 March 2001,
Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)149)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;
Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern: the failure to respect the applicants' right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1of the Convention) and the breach of the presumption of innocence (violation of Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Ireland's obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of
- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- general measures preventing, similar violations;
Having regard to Interim Resolution ResDH(2003)149 adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 July 2003 at its 847th meeting, in which it satisfied itself that within the time-limit set, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicants the sums provided in the judgments, took note of the information supplied by the government of Ireland, and declared that it had exercised its functions, as far as the general measures are concerned, under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention in these cases (see details in Appendix), and decided to resume its consideration of individual measures at a subsequent meeting;
Having examined the further measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and
DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.
Appendix to Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)129
Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Quinn and Heaney & McGuinness against Ireland
Introductory case summary
These cases concern in particular the failure to respect the applicants' right to remain silent and not to incriminate themselves (violation of Article 6§1) and the consequent breach of the presumption of their innocence (violations of Article 6§2).
The applicants, arrested and detained in police custody on suspicion of having committed terrorist acts, were initially informed by the police that they had the right to remain silent. However, charges subsequently laid against them included that of refusing to answer questions under the terms of Section 52 of the 1939 Offences against the State Act. In the subsequent criminal proceedings, they were found not guilty of the substantive charges but convicted and sentenced (in May 1997 in the Quinn case, and in June 1991 in the Heaney and McGuinness case) to six months' imprisonment for having refused to answer questions while detained in police custody, under the terms of Section 52 abovementioned.
I.Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Name and application number
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
Quinn
no. 36887/97
--
4 000 IEP
11 341.08 IEP (less 5 000 FRF legal aid)
14 740.76 IEP
Paid on 16/03/2001
Heaney & McGuinness
no. 34720/97
--
8 000 IEP
9 377.50 IEP (less 5 000 legal aid)
16 777.18 IEP
Paid on 16/03/2001
b) Individual measures
The Quinn case: on 23/04/2004 the High Court quashed the applicant's conviction. The final judgment (neutral citation [2004] IEHC 103) has been published by the British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) at . The relevant court was informed that the applicant's conviction had been quashed. Both the register of the court and police records now reflect the High Court's decision and the European Court's judgment, so that a response to inquiries about the applicant to the police authorities would not reveal any indication of that conviction.
The Heaney and McGuinness case: on 29/05/2006, the Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the applicants' convictions on the ground that they were unsafe. The Registrar of that court advised the Garda Criminal Records Office that the applicants' convictions had been quashed.
II.General measures
The measures adopted are detailed in the appendix to the interim resolution referred to above, which was adopted at the 847th meeting (July 2003) and by which it was decided to close the Committee's examination of general measures.
They may be summarised as follows.
- The Irish authorities decided that the Garda Siochana (the police) were no longer to avail themselves of Section 52 of the 1939 Offences against the State Act.
- In its judgment of 21 January 1999 in Re: National Irish Bank (No.1)[2], the Supreme Court found that no statement made under a certain legislative provision (which was similar to that found in Section 52 of the 1939 Act) would be admitted into evidence unless the trial judge was satisfied that the confession was voluntary. The Supreme Court considered that compelling a person to confess and convicting that person on the basis of that compelled confession would be contrary to Article 38 of the Constitution.
In the Irish legal system, a judgment of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country, is part of the law of Ireland. A judgment of the Supreme Court, such as that given in the National Irish Bank Ltd case, must be applied by all criminal courts.
The position in Irish law now is that a statement obtained as a result of a statutory demand would be inadmissible in evidence where the judge decided that that statement was not given voluntarily.
Following that judgment, the police authorities ceased to invoke Section 52 of the 1939 Act in the questioning of suspects.
- The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, which is part of Irish law, requires Irish courts to interpret and apply the law in a manner compatible with the Convention and to take into account the case- law of the European Court.
- The adaptation of Irish law to the Convention requirements is also evident from the decisions taken in the context of the individual measures.
- The judgment of the European Court is accessible on the Irish Courts Service website ( ) and available in legal libraries.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Ireland has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2009 at the 1072nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
[2] which can be found at
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy