INTERIM resolution DH () 316
HUMAN RIGHTS
APPLICATION No. 21387/93
WATSON AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 25 September 1998
at the 640th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 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 on 22 January 1998, by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 14 April 1992 by a British national, Mr David Watson, against the United Kingdom;
Whereas on 9 March 1998 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 of the Convention;
Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 21 October 1996, the applicant complained of the delay in reviewing the lawfulness of his detention after the expiry of his tariff of 15 years, of the absence of a right to compensation, of arbitrariness in fixing his tariff and of the unlawfulness of his detention as a whole;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, as regards the delay in reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention after the expiry of his tariff, that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention, as regards the absence of a right to compensation in this respect, and that it was not necessary to consider the other complaints of the applicant under Article 6, paragraph 1, and Article 5, paragraphs 1, 4, 5 of the Convention;
Whereas, at the 640th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 25 September 1998, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention, as regards the delay in reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention after the expiry of his tariff and that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 5, of the Convention, as regards the lack of right to compensation in this respect,
Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;
Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy