The Committee of Ministers,
Having regard to Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter
referred to as "the convention");
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights in the "case of Ireland against the United Kingdom" delivered
on 18 January 1978 and transmitted on the same day to the Committee of
Ministers;
Recalling that this case had its origin in an application against
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights by the
Government of Ireland on 16 December 1971 under Article 24
(art. 24) of the convention;
Recalling that the case had been brought before the European
Court of Human Rights on 10 March 1976 by the Irish Government in
pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;
Whereas in its judgment of 18 January 1978 the Court:
I. On Article 3
1. held unanimously that although certain violations of Article 3
(art. 3) were not contested, a ruling should nevertheless be given
thereon;
2. held unanimously that it has jurisdiction to take cognisance of
the cases of alleged violation of Article 3 (art. 3) to the extent
that the applicant Government put them forward as establishing the
existence of a practice;
3. held by sixteen votes to one that the use of the five techniques
in August and October 1971 constituted a practice of inhuman and
degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of Article 3
(art. 3);
4. held by thirteen votes to four that the use of the five
techniques did not constitute a practice of torture within the meaning
of Article 3 (art. 3);
5. held by sixteen votes to one that no other practice of
ill-treatment is established for the unidentified interrogation
centres;
6. held unanimously that there existed at Palace Barracks in the
autumn of 1971 a practice of inhuman treatment, which practice was in
breach of Article 3 (art. 3);
7. held by fourteen votes to three that the last-mentioned practice
was not one of torture within the meaning of Article 3 (art. 3);
8. held unanimously that it is not established that the practice in
question continued beyond the autumn of 1971;
9. held by fifteen votes to two that no practice in breach of
Article 3 (art. 3) is established as regards other places;
10. held unanimously that it cannot direct the respondent State to
institute criminal or disciplinary proceedings against those members
of the security forces who have committed the breaches of Article 3
(art. 3) found by the Court and against those who condoned or
tolerated such breaches;
II. On Article 5 (art. 5)
11. held unanimously that at the relevant time there existed in
Northern Ireland a public emergency threatening the life of the
nation, within the meaning of Article 15, paragraph 1 (art. 15-1);
12. held unanimously that the British notices of derogation dated
20 August 1971, 23 January 1973 and 16 August 1973 fulfilled the
requirements of Article 15, paragraph 3 (art. 15-3);
13. held by sixteen votes to one that, although the practice followed
in Northern Ireland from 9 August 1971 to March 1975 in the application
of the legislation providing for extrajudicial deprivation of
liberty entailed derogations from paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5
(art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4), it is not established that the
said derogations exceeded the extent strictly required by the
exigencies of the situation, within the meaning of Article 15,
paragraph 1 (art. 15-1);
14. held unanimously that the United Kingdom has not disregarded in
the present case other obligations under international law, within
the meaning of Article 15, paragraph 1 (art. 15-1);
15. held by fifteen votes to two that no discrimination contrary to
Articles 14 and 5 (art. 14+5) taken together is established;
III. On Article 6 (art. 6)
16. held unanimously that the derogations from Article 6 (art. 6),
assuming it to be applicable in the present case, are compatible with
Article 15 (art. 15);
17. held by fifteen votes to two that no discrimination contrary to
Articles 14 and 6 (art. 14+6) taken together, assuming the latter
article to be applicable in the present case, is established;
IV. On Article 50 (art. 50)
18. held unanimously that it is not necessary to apply Article 50
(art. 50) in the present case;
Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54
(art. 54) of the convention";
Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of
the measures which it had taken in consequence of the judgment, having
regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention
to abide by the judgment;
Whereas during the examination of this case by the Committee of
Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom informed the Committee
of the reasons why it considered that the judgment does not call for
any consequential measures in addition to those that have already been
taken, which information is summarised in the appendix to this
resolution,
Declares, having taken note of this information, that it has exercised
its function under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this
case.
Appendix to Resolution (78) 35
Summary of information provided by the Government of
the United Kingdom during the examination of the "case of Ireland
against the United Kingdom" before the Committee of Ministers
I. The Court found that the use of the five techniques in aid of
interrogation in August and October 1971 constituted a practice of
inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the
convention. The fourteen men concerned brought civil actions for
damages in the High Court of Northern Ireland and were given
compensation ranging from £10 000 to £25 000. Between August and
November 1971 the events in question were investigated at the request
of the United Kingdom Government by a Committee of Enquiry, under
Sir Edmund Compton, and the Parker Committee then considered whether
the techniques should be used in the future. As is recorded in the
judgment, the Prime Minister, Mr Heath, announced in March 1972 that
they would not be used in future as an aid to interrogation and, in
February 1977, the Court took formal note of a solemn undertaking by
the Attorney-General to the same effect. The five techniques had not
been used since October 1971 and the United Kingdom Government would
not permit or condone their use in the future, whether in Northern
Ireland or elsewhere.
II. The Court also found that there was, in autumn 1971, a practice
of inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the convention
in connection with the interrogation of prisoners by the Royal Ulster
Constabulary at Palace Barracks, but that it was not established that
this practice continued thereafter.
III. As the Court noted, a series of measures was adopted from 1971
onwards to ensure that prisoners would in the future be properly
treated, including medical examinations of persons held for
questioning by the police, strict instructions to the security forces
and rigorous procedures for investigating complaints.
IV. For these reasons, the United Kingdom Government considers that
the Court's judgment does not call for any consequential measures to
be taken by it in addition to those already taken.