The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights
in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the
application lodged on 10 March 1986 by Mr Peter Chester against the United
Kingdom (Request No. 12395/86);
Whereas on 3 July 1990 the Commission transmitted the said report to the
Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in
Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention elapsed without the case
having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of
Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;
Whereas in his application the applicant complained inter alia that there had
been an unjustified interference with his right to respect for his
correspondence, as guaranteed by Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, in
relation to several letters written by him while in prison;
Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 10 July 1989 as
regards the above-mentioned complaint and in its report adopted on 17 May 1990
expressed the opinion:
- by eighteen votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 8
(art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter dated
9 March 1986;
- unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the
Convention in respect of the applicant's letter dated 22 July 1986 to his
solicitor;
- by fourteen votes to five, that there had been no violation of Article 8
(art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the imposition of letter and Christmas
card quota restrictions;
- by twelve votes to seven, that there had been no violation of Article 8
(art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the delay in posting the applicant's
letter dated 12 March 1987;
- by twelve votes to seven, that there had been no violation of Article 8
(art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the applicant's letter dated
1 October 1987;
- by fourteen votes to five, that there had been no violation of Article 8
(art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the interruption of the applicant's
correspondence with a fellow prisoner for a certain period;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with
Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;
Whereas, during the examination of the case, the Committee of Ministers was
informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that the prohibition on
correspondence containing complaints about prison treatment not yet raised
through the prescribed internal procedures was abolished in 1984 in respect of
legal correspondence,
Decides, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32,
paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention:
i. that there has been a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention
in respect of the applicant's letter dated 22 July 1986 to his solicitor;
ii. that there has been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the
Convention in respect of the other letters of the applicant;
Takes note of the information provided by the Government of the
United Kingdom;
Decides that no further action is called for in this case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy