resolution DH (2000) 47
CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
OF 29 SEPTEMBER 1999 (FINAL ON 29 DECEMBER 1999)
IN THE CASE OF SMITH AND FORD AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 April 2000
at the 704th 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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Smith and Ford case delivered on 29 September 1999 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Article 44 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in two applications (Nos. 37475/97 and 39036/97) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 August and 10 December 1997 respectively under Article 25 of the unamended Convention by Mr David Smith and Mr Darren Ford, British nationals, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that they were denied a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal as they were convicted by district courts martial convened pursuant to the Army Act 1955;
Recalling that, following the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 of the Convention on 1 November 1998, the applications fell to be examined by the Court;
Whereas in its judgment of 29 September 1999 the Court, unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;
- held that it was not required to apply Article 41 of the Convention in this case;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 of the Convention which are, for the time being, applicable by analogy to cases under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11;
Having invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 29 September 1999, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as those found in this case, notably through the entry into force on 1 April 1997 of the Armed Forces Act 1996 which amended the relevant provisions of the Army Act 1955 and the Air Force Act 1955 (see Resolution DH (98) 11 in the Findlay case against the United Kingdom and Resolution DH (98) 12 in the Coyne case against the United Kingdom), and indicated that the Court's judgment had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned,
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