RESOLUTION DH (79) 3
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of
the European 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 by Mr Arthur Hilton against the
United Kingdom (Application No. 5613/72);
Whereas on 9 June 1978 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
has 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 introduced on 4 May 1972 the applicant
complained that he was ill-treated by prison staff during his
detention in prison, thus alleging ill-treatment amounting to inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3)
of the Convention, of obstruction by the Home Office on two occasions
to allow him to instruct a solicitor contrary to his right of access
to courts in the determination of his civil rights ensured by
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention as interpreted by the
European Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 21 February 1975 in
the Golder case, of unjustified censorhsip of his correspondence
contrary to his right to respect for correspondence as guaranteed by
Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;
Whereas the Commission in its decision of 15 March 1976 declared the
application admissible insofar as it concerned complaints under
Articles 3, 6 and 8 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 8) and declared the
remainder of the application inadmissible as being immaterial to the
allegations made;
Whereas by decision of 8 July 1977, the Commission adjourned
its examination of the applicant's allegations concerning
censorship of his letters until conclusions could be drawn from
seven applications against the United Kingdom presently before
the Commission concerning censorship of prisoners' letters;
Whereas the Commission in its report adopted on 6 March 1978 expressed
the opinion by 10 votes to 4 that no breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of
the Convention was disclosed in respect of the applicant's allegations
of specific incidents of ill-treatment and, unanimously, that in his
denials of authorisation to institute proceedings, the Home Secretary
failed to respect the applicant's right to go before a civil court and
that therefore the facts of the complaints disclose a breach of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
Whereas during the examination of this case, the Committee of
Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it
agreed with these conclusions but not with all the contents of the
Commission's report; and furthermore that, whilst accepting that in
this case there was a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1)
of the Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights
in the Golder case, it considered that no measure was required within
the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 32 (art. 32-2) since the
complaint made by Mr Hilton arose before the judgment of the Court in
the Golder case and the points of principle raised by this application
had already been met by the change made in the law of the United
Kingdom, as shown by Resolution (76) 35 adopted by the Committee of
Ministers on 22 June 1976 in application of Article 54 (art. 54)
of the Convention in the Golder case, and in Resolution DH (78) 3
adopted on 19 April 1978 in application of Article 32 (art. 32) of the
Convention in the case of Kiss against the United Kingdom, and that
reparation had been offered by the United Kingdom to the applicant and
rejected by him;
Agreeing, subject to the foregoing, with the opinion expressed by the
Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1) of
the Convention;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1) of the Convention,
a. Decides that in this case there has been no violation of Article 3
(art. 3) of the Convention;
b. Decides that in this case there has been a violation of
Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention;
c. Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the
Government of the United Kingdom, that no further action is called for
in this case.
* *
*
RESOLUTION DH (94) 35
The Committee of Ministers,
Whereas the Committee decided to terminate its examination
of the Hilton case by Resolution DH (79) 3 and the Kiss case by
Resolution DH (78) 3;
Having regard to the request formulated by the Government
of the United Kingdom on 18 April 1994 to have the reports
adopted by the European Commission of Human Rights on
8 October 1977 in the case of Kiss against the United Kingdom
(Application No. 6224/73) and on 6 March 1978 in the case of
Hilton against the United Kingdom (Application No. 5613/72) made
public,
Decides to make public the above-mentioned reports of the
Commission.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy