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 by Mr Mohammed Zamir against the
United Kingdom (Application No. 9174/80);
Whereas, on 21 December 1983, 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 23 October 1980, the
applicant complained that he was a victim of a practice of summary
detention of illegal entrants without adequate judicial control, that
the legal rules governing his arrest and detention were uncertain and
not reasonably foreseeable, and that the proceedings before the courts
did not involve a decision as to the "lawfulness" of his detention
invoking Article 5, paragraph 1 and paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1,
art. 5-1-f), and Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the
convention;
Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on
13 July 1982;
Whereas the Commission, in its report adopted on 11 October 1983,
examined whether the applicant was lawfully detained as a person
against whom action was being taken with a view to deportation within
the meaning of Article 5, paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1-f), whether the
applicant was able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before
a court as required by Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and if so
whether the proceedings were conducted speedily within the meaning of
Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4);
Whereas the Commission expressed the opinion, by eleven votes and one
abstention, that the applicant was lawfully detained under Article 5,
paragraph 1.f (art. 5-1-f), as a person against whom action was being
taken with a view to deportation, and that therefore there has been no
breach of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), that the applicant was
able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before a court as
required by Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), and unanimously that
the proceedings in the present case were not conducted speedily, and
that therefore there had been a breach of Article 5, paragraph 4
(art. 5-4), of the convention in this respect;
Whereas, during the examination of this case, the Committee of
Ministers was informed by the Government of the United Kingdom that it
accepted the Commission's findings and that, as stated in
paragraph 115 of the Commission's report, the Rules of the supreme
court concerning habeas corpus were amended in 1980 in order to
facilitate an early hearing;
Agreeing 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 not been a violation of
Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the convention;
b. Decides that in this case there has not been a violation of
Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention, insofar as the
applicant was able to challenge the lawfulness of his detention before
a court;
c. Decides that in this case there has been a violation of
Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the convention insofar as the
proceedings were not conducted speedily;
d. Decides that no further action is called for in this case.