EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application Nos. 14550/89, 14604/89, 14632/89, 14673/89, 14706/89,
14708/89, 14709/89, 14710/89, 14759/89, 14760/89, 14765/89 and 14781/89
Sean and Kathleen McELDOWNEY, Gerard BURNS, Sean McGOVERN, Michael FOX,
Michael MULLIN, Kevin MULLIN, Mark MULLIN, Arthur McNALLY, Francis
McKEOWN, Peter HUGHES, Patrick O'HAGAN and Raymond LARMOUR
against
the UNITED KINGDOM
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 14 October 1991)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
I. INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-19) 1-4
A. The applications (paras. 2-5) 1
B. The proceedings (paras. 6-14) 1-3
C. The present Report (paras. 15-19) 3-4
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 20-37) 5-8
A. The particular circumstances of the cases 5-7
(paras. 20-35)
B. The relevant domestic law and practice 7-8
(paras. 36-37)
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 38-52) 9-12
A. Complaints declared admissible 9
(para. 38)
B. Points at issue (para. 39) 9
C. As regards Article 5 para. 3 9-11
of the Convention (paras. 40-45)
Conclusion (para. 45) 11
D. As regards Article 5 para. 5 11
of the Convention
(paras. 46-50)
Conclusion (para. 50) 11
E. Recapitulation (paras. 51-52) 12
Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall 13
APPENDIX I History of the proceedings 14-16
APPENDIX II Decision on the admissibility 17-23
of Application No. 14550/89
5.3.91
APPENDIX III Decision on the admissibility 24-27
of Application No. 14604/89
5.3.91
APPENDIX IV Decision on the admissibility 28-32
of Application No. 14632/89
5.3.91
APPENDIX V Decision on the admissibility 33-41
of Application Nos. 14673/89,
14706/89, 14708/89, 14709/89,
14710/89 and 14760/89 5.3.91
APPENDIX VI Decision on the admissibility 42-47
of Application Nos. 14759/89
and 14781/89 5.3.91
APPENDIX VII Decision on the admissibility 48-53
of Application No. 14765/89
5.3.91
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The following is an outline of the cases, as submitted to the
European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the
Commission.
A. The applications
2. Sean and Kathleen McEldowney (husband and wife), Sean McGovern,
Michael Fox, Michael, Kevin and Mark Mullin (three brothers), Arthur
McNally, Francis McKeown, Peter Hughes, Patrick O'Hagan and Raymond
Larmour are all citizens of the United Kingdom. They were born in 1956,
1960, 1958, 1955, 1959, 1956, 1965, 1953, 1958, 1955, 1952 and 1958
respectively. They reside in Northern Ireland and were represented
before the Commission by Messrs. J. Christopher Napier & Co.,
Solicitors, Belfast.
3. Gerard Burns, the third applicant, is a citizen of Ireland, born
in 1953 and resident in Northern Ireland. He was represented before
the Commission by Messrs. John J. Rice & Co., Solicitors, Belfast.
4. The applications are directed against the United Kingdom. The
respondent Government were represented before the Commission by their
Agent, Mr. M.C. Wood, succeeded by Mrs. A.F. Glover, both of the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
5. The cases concern the applicants' arrest and detention without
charge, and without being brought before a judicial authority, for
periods exceeding 4 days under section 12 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. They raise issues under
Article 5 of the Conventioon, particularly Article 5 paras. 3 and 5.
B. The proceedings
6. The first application was introduced by Sean and Kathleen
McEldowney on 13 January 1989 and registered on 18 January 1989. The
second application was introduced by Gerard Burns on 19 January 1989
and registered on 1 February 1989. The third application was
introduced by Sean McGovern on 27 January 1989 and registered on
7 February 1989. The fourth application was introduced by Michael Fox
on 31 January 1989 and registered on 20 February 1989. The fifth,
sixth and seventh applications were introduced by Michael, Kevin and
Mark Mullin on 13 February 1989 and registered on 28 February 1989.
The eighth application was introduced by Arthur McNally on
16 February 1989 and registered on 28 February 1989. The ninth and
tenth applications were introduced by Francis McKeown and Peter Hughes
on 22 February 1989 and registered on 8 March 1989. The eleventh
application was introduced by Patrick O'Hagan on 27 February 1989 and
registered on 10 March 1989. The twelfth application was introduced by
Raymond Larmour on 7 March 1989 and registered on 15 March 1989.
7. After a preliminary examination of the cases by the Rapporteur,
the Commission considered the admissibility of the applications on
6 May 1989. The Commission decided to join the applications and to
request the parties' written observations on admissibility and merits,
pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure (former
version).
8. The Government lodged their observations on 21 September 1989
after an extension of the time-limit fixed for their submission.
Messrs. J. Christopher Napier & Co. submitted observations in reply
on behalf of their clients on 18 October 1989. Messrs. John J. Rice
Co. did not submit observations on behalf of their client, Gerard
Burns, save to confirm by letter of 2 January 1990 that he maintained
his application.
9. On 6 February 1990 the Commission decided to adjourn its
examination of all the applications pending the judgment of the Court
in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, in view
of an original complaint made by these applicants under
Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention.
10. As Gerard Burns had not made a complaint in the second
application under Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention, his case was not
adjourned. The Commission informed the Government that it did not
consider it necessary to hold a hearing in that case. On 12 May 1990
the Commission again examined the state of proceedings in the second
application. It considered that Mr. Burns' complaint raised an issue
under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention and requested the parties to
submit specific written observations on this point, not dealt with in
the previous observations. The Government submitted their observations
on 22 June 1990, to which Mr. Burns' representatives replied on
11 July 1990.
11. The Court delivered its judgment in the case of Fox, Campbell and
Hartley on 30 August 1990 (Eur. Court H.R., Series A no. 182). On
7 September 1990 the Commission decided to invite the parties in the
other 11 cases to submit any comments they might have on the
significance of this judgment for the admissibility of their
applications. Messrs. J. Christopher Napier & Co. submitted their
comments on 5 October 1990. The Government lodged their comments on
23 November 1990 after an extension of the time limit fixed for their
submission. In their various observations these applicants withdrew
certain original complaints they had made under Article 5 paras. 1 (c)
and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention. As regards Article 5 para. 2,
these applicants also conceded that the Court's finding in the Fox,
Campbell and Hartley case was made in circumstances very similar to
their own. This was subsequently interpreted by the Commission as a
withdrawal of the complaint under Article 5 para. 2.
12. On 26 February 1991 the Commission decided to refer all the cases
to the Second Chamber, which on 5 March 1991 declared the first and
eleventh applications partially admissible and the other 10
applications admissible.
13. On 13 March 1991 the parties were sent the texts of the
Commission's decisions (grouped according to their factual
circumstances) and they were invited to submit further observations on
the merits of the case should they so wish. On 19 March 1991
Messrs. John J. Rice & Co. informed the Commission that they had no
additional observations to make on behalf of Mr. Burns. On
10 April 1991 the Government informed the Commission that they had no
additional observations to make on any of the applications. Similarly,
no additional observations were submitted by Messrs. J. Christopher
Napier & Co. on behalf of the other applicants.
14. After declaring the cases admissible, the Commission, acting in
accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed
itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a
friendly settlement. In the light of the parties' reaction, the
Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement
can be effected.
C. The present Report
15. The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second
Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after
deliberations and votes, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
G. SPERDUTI
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Mrs. J. LIDDY
Mr. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
16. The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on
14 October 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers
of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the
Convention.
17. The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the
Convention, is
1) to establish the facts, and
2) to state an opinion as to whether the facts found
disclose a breach by the State concerned of its
obligations under the Convention.
18. A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the
Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's
decisions on the admissibility of the applications as APPENDICES II -
VII.
19. The pleadings of the parties, together with the documents lodged
as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.
II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS
A. The particular circumstances of the cases
20. All the applicants were arrested and detained without charge for
periods exceeding 4 days under section 12 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (the 1984 Act).
21. The first applicant, Sean McEldowney, was arrested at 21.55 hrs.
on 24 August 1988. At the time of his arrest he was told that he was
being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was suspected of
being involved in terrorism. He was also informed that there had been
an attempt to murder two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC)
earlier that day and that a convicted terrorist had been found in the
roof-space of his home which had been searched in his absence. He was
detained for questioning about these matters until 18.15 hrs. on
31 August 1988, when he was released without being charged with any
offence. He was thus detained for 6 days, 20 hours and 20 minutes.
22. The second applicant, Kathleen McEldowney, was arrested at 14.50
hrs. on 24 August 1988 for the same reasons and the same purpose as her
husband, the first applicant. She was informed of this. She was
particularly suspected of being involved in the attempted murder of the
two RUC police officers because witnesses had described a woman
resembling her amongst a group of people who had stolen a van used in
the attempt. She was released at 13.00 hrs. on 31 August 1988 without
being charged with an offence. She was thus detained for 6 days,
22 hours and 10 minutes.
23. The third applicant, Gerard Burns, was arrested at 11.10 hrs. on
7 September 1988 as he was running away from a car similar to that used
by a gunman who a few minutes earlier had murdered someone in the
street. He is suspected of being a member of the Irish People's
Liberation Organisation, a terrorist organisation, and he has
convictions for terrorist offences. At the time of his arrest he was
told that he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he
was suspected of being involved in terrorism and he was also informed
that he was suspected of having been involved in the murder. He was
detained for questioning about these matters until 18.15 hrs. on
11 September 1988, when he was released without charge. He was thus
detained for 4 days, 7 hours and 5 minutes.
24. The fourth applicant, Sean McGovern, was arrested at 07.00 hrs.
on 27 October 1988 during a search of his house. He was informed that
he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was
suspected of being involved in terrorism and, in particular, was
suspected of being involved in the murder of a police constable the day
before, because a vehicle owned by the applicant, who is known to
associate with members of the Provisional IRA, a proscribed terrorist
organisation, was seen in the immediate vicinity at the time of the
murder. He was detained for questioning about these matters and
released without charge at 16.15 hrs. on 2 November 1988. He was thus
detained for 6 days, 9 hours and 15 minutes.
25. The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh applicants
were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the same terrorist
incident in which unmarked civilian buses carrying soldiers were
ambushed by an explosive device in a road on 20 August 1988, resulting
in the death of eight soldiers and the injury of 27 others, some
seriously. On their arrest these applicants were all informed that
they were arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act on suspicion of
being involved in terrorism. They were all questioned about the bomb
attack during their detention and their suspected membership of the
Provisional IRA.
26. The fifth applicant, Michael Fox, was arrested at 04.03 hrs. on
24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on
28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 37
minutes.
27. The sixth applicant, Michael Mullin, was arrested at 04.05 hrs.
on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.30 hrs. on
28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 25
minutes.
28. The seventh applicant, Kevin Mullin, was arrested at 04.02 hrs.
on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.30 hrs. on
28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 28
minutes.
29. The eighth applicant, Mark Mullin, was arrested at 04.07 hrs. on
24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.35 hrs. on
28 August 1988. He was thus also detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 28
minutes.
30. The ninth applicant, Arthur McNally, who had convictions in 1976
for explosives and firearms offences, was arrested at 04.10 hrs. on 24
August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on
28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 30
minutes.
31. The eleventh applicant, Peter Hughes, was arrested at 04.14 hrs.
on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on
28 August 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 26
minutes.
32. The tenth and thirteenth applicants were arrested on suspicion
of being involved in the same terrorist incident in which explosives
concealed in a van caused damage to a police station and neighbouring
houses, injuring a number of police officers and civilians, on
8 September 1988. On their arrest they were both informed that they
were arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act on suspicion of being
involved in terrorism. They were questioned about the attack on the
police station during their detention. 33. The tenth applicant,
Francis McKeown, a suspected member of the Provisional IRA, was
arrested at 13.35 hrs. on 9 September 1988 and released without charge
at 13.00 hrs. on 15 September 1988. He was thus detained 5 days, 23
hours and 25 minutes. He was arrested a month later under the same
legal provision at 08.30 hrs. on 13 October 1988 for questioning about
a bunker found under the floor of his garage which police suspected was
being used for terrorist purposes. He was released without charge at
18.40 hrs. on 17 October 1988. This second period of detention thus
lasted 4 days, 10 hours and 10 minutes.
34. The thirteenth applicant, Raymond Larmour, was arrested at 21.48
hrs. on 8 September 1988 and released without charge at 17.30 hrs. on
14 September 1988. He was thus detained for 5 days, 19 hours and 42
minutes.
35. The twelfth applicant, Patrick O'Hagan, a suspected member of the
Provisional IRA with convictions for firearms and explosives offences,
was arrested at 06.14 hrs. on 29 September 1988. At the time of his
arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 12 of the
1984 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism. During
his detention he was told that the police were inquiring into terrorist
activity and involvement in his vicinity and he was questioned about
his association with certain known Provisional IRA terrorists, a murder
in 1986, his suspected membership of the Provisional IRA and the
suspected hidden storage of munitions on his property (a search of the
property having revealed nothing). He was released without charge at
12.55 hrs. on 3 October 1988. He was thus detained for 4 days, 6 hours
and 41 minutes.
B. The relevant domestic law and practice
36. The applicants were detained pursuant to section 12 of the
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 which provides
as follows:
"(1) A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he
reasonably suspects to be -
(a) a person guilty of an offence under sections 1, 9, 10
or 11 of this Act;
(b) a person who is or has been concerned in the
commission, preparation or instigation of acts of
terrorism;
(c) a person subject to an exclusion order.
...
(3) The acts of terrorism to which this Part of the Act applies
are: -
(a) acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of
Northern Ireland; and
(b) acts of terrorism of any other description except
acts connected solely with the affairs of the United
Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom other than
Northern Ireland.
(4) A person arrested under this section shall not be
detained in right of the arrest for more than forty-eight hours
after his arrest, but the Secretary of State may, in any
particular case, extend the period of forty-eight hours by a
further period or periods specified by him.
(5) Any such further period or periods shall not exceed
five days in all.
(6) The following provisions (requirement to bring an
accused person before the court after his arrest) shall not
apply to a person detained in right of the arrest -
...
(d) Article 131 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern
Ireland) Order 1981; ..."
37. The history of this legislation is set out at paragraphs 25 to
28 in the case of Brogan and Others (Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and
Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145B). As from
22 March 1989, the 1984 Act was replaced by the corresponding
provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions)
Act 1989.
III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
A. Complaints declared admissible
38. The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaint
that their arrest and detention under Section 12 of the Prevention of
Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 were in breach of Article 5
para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. The Commission also declared
admissible the complaint of all the applicants, except Gerard Burns,
the third applicant, who did not raise the point, that they had no
enforceable right to compensation pursuant to Article 5 para. 5
(Art. 5-5) of the Convention.
B. Points at issue
39. The following are the points at issue in the present cases:
- whether the applicants were brought promptly before a judge
or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power,
as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention;
- whether twelve of the applicants had an enforceable right
to compensation, as required by Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of
the Convention.
C. As regards Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention
40. Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention provides as
follows:
"Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge
or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall
be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."
41. The applicants have complained that they were not brought
"promptly" before a judge after their arrest, contrary to
Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. They were held for
periods ranging from 4 days, 6 hours and 41 minutes (Patrick O'Hagan,
the twelfth applicant) to 6 days, 22 hours and 10 minutes
(Kathleen McEldowney, the second applicant) before being released. At
no time during their detention were they brought before a judge. They
rely on the judgment of the Court in the case of Brogan and Others in
which it was held that periods of detention varying from 4 days, 6
hours to 6 days, 16 hours and 30 minutes under section 12 of the
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, without the
individuals concerned being brought before a judicial authority, was
in violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention
(Eur. Court H.R., Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988,
Series A no. 145B, paras. 55-62).
42. The Government have contended that the precise basis of the
applicants' complaint is unclear and that it is accordingly unfounded.
43. The Commission notes that at paragraphs 61 and 62 of the
aforementioned Brogan and Others judgment the Court held as follows:
"61. The investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presents the
authorities with special problems. ... The Court accepts that,
subject to the existence of adequate safeguards, the context of
terrorism in Northern Ireland has the effect of prolonging the period
during which the authorities may, without violating Article 5 para. 3,
(Art. 5-3) keep a person suspected of serious terrorist offences in
custody before bringing him before a judge or other judicial officer.
The difficulties, alluded to by the Govenment, of judicial
control over decisions to arrest and detain suspected terrorists may
affect the manner of implementation of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3), for
example in calling for appropriate procedural precautions in view of
the nature of the suspected offences. However, they cannot justify,
under Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3), dispensing altogether with 'prompt'
judicial control.
62. ... the scope for flexibility in interpreting and applying the
notion of 'promptness' is very limited. In the Court's view, even the
shortest of the four periods of detention, namely the four days and six
hours spent in police custody by (one of the applicants) falls outside
the strict constraints as to time permitted by the first part of
Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3). To attach such importance to the special
features of this case as to justify so lengthy a period of detention
without appearance before a judge or other judicial officer would be
an unacceptably wide interpretation of the plain meaning of the word
'promptly'. An interpretation to this effect would import into
Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3) a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee
to the detriment of the individual and would entail consequences
impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision.
The Court thus has to conclude that none of the applicants was either
brought 'promptly' before a judicial authority or released 'promptly'
following his arrest. The undoubted fact that the arrest and detention
of the applicants were inspired by the legitimate aim of protecting the
community as a whole from terrorism is not on its own sufficient to
ensure compliance with the specific requirements of Article 5 § 3
(Art. 5-3).
There has thus been a breach of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3) in
respect of all four applicants."
44. In view of the fact that the applicants in the present cases were
detained for longer periods than that of four days and six hours
mentioned in the above extract from the Brogan and Others judgment, the
Commission is of the opinion that the applicants were not brought
"promptly" before a judge, as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3)
of the Convention.
Conclusion
45. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been
a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.
D. As regards Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention
46. Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention provides as
follows:
"Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or
detention in contravention of the provisions of
this Article shall have an enforceable right
to compensation."
47. Twelve of the applicants complained that they have no enforceable
right to compensation in domestic law for the breach of Article 5
para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention which they suffered. No such
complaint was made by Gerard Burns (No. 14604/89). The twelve
applicants again relied on the judgment of the Court in the case of
Brogan and Others in which a breach of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) was
found as those applicants had not had a right to compensation in
respect of the violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the
Convention (ibid. paras. 66-67).
48. The Government contended that as the facts of the cases of the
twelve applicants in question disclosed no breach of Article 5 para. 3
(Art. 5-3) of the Convention, no issue could arise under
Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.
49. The twelve applicants were arrested and detained lawfully under
domestic law but, as the Commission has concluded above, in breach of
Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention. This violation could
not give rise, either before or after such a finding by the Convention
organs, to an enforceable claim for compensation by the applicants
before the courts in the United Kingdom. The twelve applicants do not,
therefore, have any enforceable right to compensation under
Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.
Conclusion
50. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been
a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the
cases of twelve applicants.
E. Recapitulation
51. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been
a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention
(para. 45).
52. The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been
a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the
cases of twelve applicants (para. 50).
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall
I agree that if the judgment of the Court in the Brogan and
Others case is followed the applicants in the present cases were not
"brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to
exercise judicial power ..." and that in consequence there would be a
violation of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. I remain however of
the opinion, which I expressed in that case, that in the circumstances
at present obtaining in Northern Ireland the needs of the community
justify a more flexible interpretation of the expression "promptly" in
Article 5 para. 3 in cases of suspected terrorism than would be
permissible in other cases.
I do not need to elaborate on this theme. I need only refer to
the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Thór Vilhjálmsson,
Bindschleder-Robert, Gölcüklü, Matscher and Valticos and to the
dissenting opinions of Judge Sir Vincent Evans and Judge Martens in the
Brogan and Others case.
I nonetheless wish to stress the extreme importance of the
safeguards given by Article 5 para. 3. The experience of the
Commission has shown that the protection of individuals who are
arrested on suspicion of having committed offences requires that the
provision shall in normal circumstances be restrictively interpreted.
The situation in Northern Ireland described in the opinions I have
referred to above, and in the Commission's report in that case, is
however such that, exceptionally, for the protection of the basic human
rights of members of the Northern Irish community, a less restrictive
interpretation of Article 5 para. 3 is required.
I am therefore of the opinion that there has been no violation
of Article 5 para. 3 in these cases. It follows that I do not consider
that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 5.
Appendix I
HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Date Item
________________________________________________________________
Introduction
13.01.89 Application No. 14550/89
19.01.89 Application No. 14604/89
27.01.89 Application No. 14633/89
31.01.89 Application No. 14673/89
13.02.89 Application Nos. 14706/89,
14708/89 and 14709/89
16.02.89 Application No. 14710/89
22.02.89 Application Nos. 14759/89
and 14760/89
27.02.89 Application No. 14765/89
07.03.89 Application No. 14781/89
Registration
18.01.89 Application No. 14550/89
01.02.89 Application No. 14604/89
07.02.89 Application No. 14633/89
20.02.89 Application No. 14673/89
28.02.89 Application Nos. 14706/89,
14708/89, 14709/89 and 14710/89
08.03.89 Application Nos. 14759/89
and 14760/89
10.03.89 Application No. 14765/89
15.03.89 Application No. 14781/89
Examination of admissibility
06.05.89 Commission's decision to join the
applications and to invite the
parties to submit their written
observations on admissibility and
merits
21.09.89 Government's observations
18.10.89 Observations of Messrs. J. Christopher
Napier & Co. on behalf of 12 applicants
02.01.90 Information from Messrs. John J. Rice
& Co. on behalf of the third applicant
(Application No. 14604/89)
06.01.90 Adjournment of 11 applications
12.05.90 Commission's decision to invite the
parties to submit observations on the
admissibility and merits of an aspect
of the second Application No. 14604/89
22.06.90 Government's observations in
Application No. 14604/89
11.07.90 Observations from Messrs. John J. Rice
& Co. in Application No. 14604/89
07.09.90 Commission's decision to invite the
parties' comments in 11 applications
on the relevance of the Fox, Campbell
and Hartley judgment to their cases
05.10.90 Comments from Messrs. J. Christopher
Napier & Co. in the 11 applications
23.11.90 Government's comments in the 11
applications
26.02.91 Commission's decision to refer cases
to the Second Chamber
05.03.91 Decision of the Commission (Second
Chamber) to declare the first and
eleventh applications partially
admissible (Nos. 14550/89 and
14765/89) and to declare the other
10 applications admissible
Examination of the merits
13.03.91 Parties invited to submit such final
observations on the merits as they
wished
19.03.91 Information from Messrs. John J. Rice
& Co. in the second Application
No. 14604/89
10.04.91 Information from the Government
10.09.91 Commission's consideration of
state of proceedings
14.10.91 Commission's deliberations on the
merits and final votes
Adoption of the present Report
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy