AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

1.  Application No. 12690/87         2.  Application No. 12731/87

P    by James CLINTON                P   by Sean SIMPSON

3.  Application No. 12823/87         4.  Application No. 12900/87

P   by Sean MAGUIRE                  P   by Patrick McGEOWN

5.  Application No. 13032/87         6.  Application No. 13033/87

P   by John MURRAY                   P   by Philip CAMPBELL

7.  Application No. 13246/87         8.  Application No. 13231/87

P   by Kieran SMYTH                  P   by Guy BRESLIN

9.  Application No. 13232/87        10.  Application No. 13233/87

P   by John CONNOLLY                 P   by Sean McGUINNESS

11.  Application No. 13310/87        12.  Application No. 13553/88

NP  by X.                            NP   by Y.

13.  Application No. 13555/88

NP  by Z.

all against the United Kingdom

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

31 May 1991, the following members being present:

                MM.  S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

                     G. JÖRUNDSSON

                     A. WEITZEL

                     H.G. SCHERMERS

                Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

                Sir  Basil HALL

                M.   F. MARTINEZ

                Mrs.  J. LIDDY

                MM.  J.C. GEUS

                     M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                Mr.  K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to :

-       the application introduced on 27 January 1987 by James CLINTON

against the United Kingdom and registered on 2 February 1987 under

file No. 12690/87;

-       the application introduced on 6 February 1987 by Sean SIMPSON

against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 February 1987 under

file No. 12731/87;

-       the application introduced on 13 March 1987 by Sean MAGUIRE

against the United Kingdom and registered on 24 March 1987 under file

No. 12823/87;

-       the application introduced on 1 May 1987 by Patrick McGEOWN

against the United Kingdom and registered on 5 May 1987 under file

No. 12900/87;

-       the application introduced on 1 June 1987 by John MURRAY

against the United Kingdom and registered on 9 June 1987 under file

No. 13032/87;

-       the application introduced on 2 June 1987 by Philip CAMPBELL

against the United Kingdom and registered on 12 June 1987 under file

No. 13033/87;

-       the application introduced on 18 September 1987 by Kieran

SMYTH against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 September 1987

under file No. 13246/87;

-       the application introduced on 14 May 1987 by Guy BRESLIN

against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 September 1987 under

file No. 13231/87;

-       the application introduced on 14 May 1987 by John CONNOLLY

against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 September 1987 under

file No. 13232/87;

-       the application introduced on 14 May 1987 by Sean McGUINNESS

against the United Kingdom and registered on 28 September 1987 under

file No. 13233/87;

-       the application introduced on 10 August 1987 by X.

against the United Kingdom and registered on 19 October 1987 under

file No. 13310/87;

-       the application introduced on 1 October 1987 by Y.

against the United Kingdom and registered on 26 January 1987

under file No. 13533/88;

-       the application introduced on 25 June 1987 by Z.

against the United Kingdom and registered on 26 January 1988 under

file No. 13555/88;

        Having regard to :

-       reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

-       the Commission's decision of 7 October 1987 to bring

Applications Nos. 12690/87, 12731/87 and 12900/87 to the notice of the

respondent Government without inviting the parties to submit written

observations on admissibility and merits at that stage pending the

outcome of the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom

and, in the meantime, to adjourn its examination of these three

applications ;

-       a similar decision of the Commission on 6 May 1989 in the

other 10 applications ;

-       the Court's judgment in the above-mentioned case on 30 August

1990 (Eur.  Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30 August

1990, Series A no. 182) ;

-       the Commission's decision of 7 September 1990 to invite the

parties to submit written observations on the applications in the

light of that judgment ;

-       the observations of the applicants' representatives in the

last six applications submitted on 7 November 1990 ;

-       the Government's observations submitted on 4 January 1991 ;

-       the observations of the applicants' representatives in the

first seven applications submitted on 12 February 1991 ;

-       the Commission's decision of 9 April 1991 to refer the

applications to the Second Chamber ;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

A.      The first seven applicants

        The first applicant, James Clinton, is an Irish citizen, born

in 1960 and resident in Belfast.

        The second applicant, Sean Simpson, is an Irish citizen, born

in 1959 and resident in Belfast.

        The third applicant, Sean Maguire, is an Irish citizen, born

in 1957 and resident in Belfast.

        The fourth applicant, Patrick McGeown, is an Irish citizen,

born in 1956 and resident in Belfast.

        The fifth applicant, John Murray, is an Irish citizen, born

in 1950 and resident in Belfast.

        The sixth applicant, Philip Campbell, is an Irish citizen,

born in 1957 and resident in Belfast.

        The seventh applicant, Kieran Smyth, is an Irish citizen, born

in 1960 and resident in Belfast.

        The seven applicants are represented before the Commission by

Messrs.  Madden and Finucane, Solicitors, Belfast.

B.      The other six applicants

        The eighth applicant, Guy Breslin, is a British citizen, born

in 1968 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.

        The ninth applicant, John Connolly, is an Irish citizen, born

in 1968 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.

        The tenth applicant, Sean McGuinness, is a British citizen,

born in 1966 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.

        The eleventh applicant is a British citizen, born in 1969 and

resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.

        The twelfth applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1964 and

resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.

        The thirteenth applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1962 and

resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.

        These six applicants are represented before the Commission by

Messrs.  John Fahy & Co., Solicitors, Strabane, County Tyrone.

        The facts of the present cases, as submitted by the parties,

may be summarised as follows :

C.      The particular circumstances of the cases

1.      Application No. 12690/87 : James Clinton

        At 06.00 hours on 21 October 1986 the first applicant was

arrested under section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency

Provisions) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested as a result of information received by the Royal Ulster

Constabulary (the RUC) from a usually reliable source which indicated

that he was involved in a terrorist incident, an attempted murder in

Ormeau Road on 3 October 1986.  Interviewing began five hours later at

11.00 hours on the day of his arrest and at that interview the first

applicant was informed that he was being questioned in connection with

the aforementioned attempted murder and possession of firearms.

During his interviews the first applicant was questioned in connection

with the circumstances of the Ormeau Road incident and it was put to

him that on the night in question he was in possession of the firearm

which caused the terrorist incident.  The first applicant declined to

answer any questions put to him during his interviews and refused to

speak at all.  At 16.20 hours on 22 October 1986 he was released

without charge, within 35 hours of his arrest.

2.      Application No. 12731/87 : Sean Simpson

        The second applicant was arrested at 05.45 hours on 13 January

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested as a result of information received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he was a member of the

Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA).  Interviewing began five and

a quarter hours later at 11.00 hours on the day of his arrest and he

was told that he was being questioned in connection with his suspected

membership of PIRA.  During subsequent interviews the second applicant

was questioned about his membership of PIRA and, in particular, the

group within PIRA which, through violence and the threat of violence,

enforces discipline within that organisation.  He was further

questioned about his involvement in the movement of weapons and in

terrorist activities in the Belfast area.  The second applicant

declined to answer any questions or to speak at all.  At 17.30 hours

on 14 January 1987 he was released without charge, within 36 hours of

his arrest.

3.      Application No. 12823/87 : Sean Maguire

        The third applicant was arrested at 06.35 hours on 11 November

1986 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he was a member of the Ardoyne

PIRA and involved in certain specific terrorist crimes in the North

Belfast area.  Interviewing began four hours later at 10.40 hours

during which he was told he was being questioned in connection with

the aforementioned matters.  He was subsequently questioned about

certain specific serious terrorist crimes in the North Belfast area.

The third applicant declined to answer any questions during his

interviews or to speak at all.  At 14.00 hours on 13 November 1986 he

was released without charge, within 56 hours of his arrest.  (At the

time of his arrest, the third applicant had previous convictions for

conspiracy to murder and possession of firearms and ammunition.)

4.      Application No. 12900/87 : Patrick McGeown

        At 04.40 hours on 1 April 1987 the fourth applicant was

arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because of information received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he was a member of PIRA and had

had possession of weapons and explosives in the Greater Belfast area.

Interviewing began nearly six hours later at 10.35 hours on the

morning of his arrest when he was informed that he was being

questioned regarding his membership of PIRA and the possession of both

weapons and explosives in the Greater Belfast area since he rejoined

PIRA after his release from prison early in 1986.  The fourth

applicant stated that he refused to answer any questions unless his

solicitor was present and thereafter declined to answer any questions.

At his first and subsequent interviews he was questioned at length

regarding his membership of and activities within PIRA and about his

knowledge of PIRA arms and explosives dumps.  He was asked how long he

was out of prison before he rejoined active service with PIRA, what

position he held when he rejoined and who processed his application to

rejoin.  He was asked what position he presently held within PIRA and

what he had done for PIRA since he rejoined.  He was also asked what

future operations of PIRA he had knowledge of and about the identities

of present active PIRA members and their positions and ranks.  At his

third interview he was asked whether he had been involved in any way

in a recent bombing in the Divis flats complex in which a soldier had

been killed.  He was released from custody at 14.15 hours on 2 April

1987, within 34 hours of his arrest.  (At the time of his arrest, the

fourth applicant had previous convictions for possessing explosives

with intent to endanger life or property, causing an explosion likely

to endanger life or property and belonging to a proscribed

organisation for which he was sentenced to a term of 15 years'

imprisonment.)

5.      Application No. 13032/87 : John Murray

        The fifth applicant was arrested at 04.50 hours on 1 April

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he had been involved in a recent

gun and rocket attack at New Barnsley RUC station at 12.15 hours on

31 March 1987.  Interviewing began nearly six hours later at 10.45

hours on the morning of his arrest when he was informed that he was

being questioned in connection with his alleged membership of PIRA and

possession of weapons on behalf of that organisation.  At that

interview he was also questioned about the aforementioned gun and

rocket attack at New Barnsley RUC Station.  In subsequent interviews

he was further questioned about his association with known members of

PIRA and was asked if he had ever been involved in PIRA operations in

West Belfast.  He was also questioned about a bomb attack at the Divis

flats on 30 March 1987 in which a soldier was murdered.  During the

course of his interviews, the fifth applicant refused to answer any

questions which were put to him either in respect of the matters for

which he had been arrested or anything else.  He was released from

custody at 12.45 hours on 3 April 1987 without being charged, within

56 hours of his arrest.

6.      Application No. 13033/87 : Philip Campbell

        The sixth applicant was arrested at 19.35 hours on 12 May 1987

under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police

Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being

arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being

involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was arrested

because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable

source which indicated that he was a member of a PIRA bombing team.

Interviewing began an hour and a half later at 21.00 hours when he was

told that he was being questioned in connection with terrorist

incidents in the Belfast area as a member of a PIRA bombing team.  He

declined to answer any questions during his interviews.  He was

released without charge at 20.05 hours on 13 May 1987, within 25 hours

of his arrest.  (On 10 December 1980 the sixth applicant was convicted

of being in possession of firearms and ammunition with intent, of

possession of firearms under suspicious circumstances and of

undertaking instruction in the use of firearms for which he was

sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment in respect of each offence to run

concurrently.)

7.      Application No. 13246/87 : Kieran Smyth

        The seventh applicant was arrested at 19.50 hours on 14 May

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the hijacking

of a van on 6 April 1987 at Laganbank Road.  Interviewing did not

begin until the next day, at 10.40 hours on 15 May 1987.  The reason

for the delay in interviewing the seventh applicant was that a routine

medical examination of the applicant could not take place until 21.20

hours on 14 May and thereafter it was not possible to assemble a team

of officers to interview the seventh applicant until the following

morning.  At his first interview the applicant was told that he was

being questioned in connection with the aforementioned hijacking of a

van.  In subsequent interviews he was questioned about his involvement

in the movement of firearms in the Short Strand area and his suspected

membership of PIRA.  Throughout his interviews he declined to answer

any questions or to speak at all.  He was released without charge at

21.00 hours on 15 May 1987, within 26 hours of his arrest.  (At the

time of his arrest, the seventh applicant had previous convictions for

riotous behaviour, intimidation, public nuisance, making use of

prohibited articles, malicious damage and belonging to a proscribed

organisation.)

8.      Application No. 13231/87 : Guy Breslin

        The eighth applicant was arrested at 12.25 hours on 15 April

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the hijacking

and arson of an Ulster bus on 24 March 1987 at 16.30 hours at the

junction of Townsend Street / Fountain Street, Strabane.  Interviewing

began three and a quarter hours later at 15.40 hours on the day of his

arrest when he was told that he was being questioned because of his

suspected involvement in the aforementioned hijacking and arson of an

Ulster bus.  He was asked what he was doing on that date and whether

he was acquainted with certain individuals.  He was asked if he was a

member of PIRA and whether he had attended the funeral of a certain

Gerald Logue at Londonderry on that date.  In subsequent interviews he

was further questioned along the same lines.  In none of his

interviews did he answer any of the questions which were put to him or

speak at all.  He was released without charge at 18.50 hours on

16 April 1987, within 31 hours of his arrest.

9.      Application No. 13232/87 : John Connolly

        The ninth applicant was arrested at 07.05 hours on 15 April

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act.  He declined to name

any person who should be informed of his arrest.  According to the

Government, he was arrested because information was received by the

RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he had been

involved in the same hijacking and arson incident as in the eighth

applicant's case.  Interviewing began over three and a half hours

later at 10.45 hours on the morning of his arrest and he was told that

the reason he was being questioned was that he was suspected of being

involved in the hijacking of the Ulster bus.  He was asked if he had

attended the funeral of Gerald Logue in Londonderry on that date and

whether this was the reason for his becoming involved in the incident

in question.  In subsequent interviews he was told that he was

suspected with two others of having masked and armed himself, boarded

the bus and ordered the driver off before driving the bus across the

road, breaking windows, pouring petrol inside it and setting fire to

it.  He was also questioned about his involvement with PIRA in

Strabane and his association with other persons from that

organisation.  Throughout the interviews the ninth applicant remained

silent, refusing to answer any questions which were put to him or

speak at all.  He was released without charge on 16 April 1987 at

19.45 hours, within 37 hours of his arrest.

10.     Application No. 13233/87 : Sean McGuinness

        The tenth applicant was arrested at 08.35 hours on 11 May

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the throwing

of petrol bombs at the police in a series of petrol bombing incidents

in the Strabane area that year, and that he was a member of PIRA.

Interviewing began over five and a half hours later at 14.15 hours on

the day of his arrest.  He was told at that interview that the reason

he was being questioned was his suspected involvement in the petrol

bombing incidents and his involvement with PIRA.  After denying his

involvement in any petrol bombing or riots, he declined to answer any

further questions in that interview.  In subsequent interviews he was

asked if he was a member of PIRA and whether he had ever thrown petrol

bombs at the police.  During his third interview the applicant was

asked whether he had been part of a crowd of youths who had thrown

petrol bombs at the police in Townsend Street on 23 February 1987.

The tenth applicant denied any involvement.  He was further asked

whether he had been involved in throwing petrol bombs at the police in

Fountain Street on 6 February 1987.  He denied any involvement,

although he said he had seen them being thrown in Fountain Street.

During a subsequent interview he was asked if he had ever been asked

to join PIRA, but he denied that he had.  In further interviews he

agreed that he had seen petrol bombs at close quarters and described

them accurately.  He admitted having thrown stones at police vehicles

when he was at school.  He also said that he had read leaflets

distributed by Sinn Fein which advised those arrested for terrorist

offences not to speak to the police during interviews at Castlereagh

Police Office.  He was questioned about his involvement in a riot on

23 February 1987 and a hijacking that night in Strabane when a

makeshift barricade was set on fire by a number of youths.  He was

questioned in detail about many specific cases of fire bombing in

respect of which he was given the date and time of the incidents about

which he was being questioned.  He denied any involvement.  He was

released without charge at 11.20 hours on 13 May 1987, within 51 hours

of his arrest.

11.     Application No. 13310/87

        The eleventh applicant was arrested at 07.40 hours on 28 April

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the same

hijacking incident as in the eighth applicant's case.  Interviewing

began over three and a quarter hours later at 11.00 hours on the

morning of his arrest when he was told that he was being questioned

because he was suspected of being involved in the aforementioned bus

hijacking, the day of Gerald Logue's funeral, and of arson at Townsend

Street, Strabane.  At subsequent interviews the applicant was asked

about his membership of the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), a

proscribed organisation.  He was also questioned in further detail

about the bus incident.  Apart from denying, in the fifth interview,

that he was involved in the incident in question in any way, the

eleventh applicant declined to answer any questions.  He was released

without charge at 15.10 hours on 30 April 1987, within 56 hours of his

arrest.

12.     Application No. 13553/88

        The twelfth applicant was arrested at 07.20 hours on 7 May

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  Interviewing began over three and a

quarter hours later at 10.40 hours on the morning of his arrest at

which he was informed that he was being questioned because he was

suspected of being a member of PIRA in Strabane.  In addition, he was

questioned about his movements on and around 5 and 6 March 1987 and

about his involvement in causing an explosion at the primary school in

Barrack Street which occurred there at 12.25 hours on 6 March 1987.

In subsequent interviews he was questioned about possession of a rifle

with a certain J.B. in Strabane at the end of February 1987, as well

as his membership of PIRA.  The twelfth applicant was asked whether he

knew J.B. or had ever spoken to him.  He was also questioned about

whether he supported the aims and objectives of PIRA.  Throughout his

interviews, he declined to answer any questions.  He was released

without charge on 8 May 1987 at 19.00 hours, within 36 hours of his

arrest.

13.     Application No. 13555/88

        The thirteenth applicant was arrested at 08.40 hours on 11 May

1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh

Police Office.  At the time of his arrest he was told that he was

being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of

being involved in terrorism.  According to the Government, he was

arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually

reliable source which indicated that he had been in a series of petrol

bomb attacks in the Strabane area in the previous 12 months, and was

involved with PIRA.  Interviewing began over five and a half hours

later at 14.15 hours on the day of his arrest.  At that interview he

was informed that he was being questioned because he was suspected of

being involved in the series of petrol bombings.  In subsequent

interviews he was further questioned about specific petrol bombing

incidents in Strabane during February and March 1987.  He was asked

why the police would receive information to the effect that he had

been involved in these petrol bombings if it were not true.  He denied

any involvement.  He was released without being charged at 11.20 hours

on 13 May 1987, within 51 hours of his arrest.

D.      The relevant domestic law and practice

        Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act

1978 conferred, inter alia, a power of arrest which is now repealed.

The relevant parts of section 11 provided as follows:

        "1.  Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom

        he suspects of being a terrorist ...

        3.   A person arrested under this section shall not be

        detained in right of the arrest for more than 72 hours

        after his arrest, and Article 131 of the Magistrates'

        Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and section 50(3)

        of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland)

        1968 (requirement to bring arrested person before a

        magistrates' court not later than 48 hours after his

        arrest) shall not apply to any such person."

        The legislative history and domestic law relating to section

11 is summarised by the Court in paragraphs 18 to 22 of its Fox,

Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30 August 1990.  As the Court

observed in paragraph 22 of its judgment, section 11(1) was replaced

by section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987,

which came into effect on 15 June 1987, subsequent to the facts of all

the present applications.  This new provision is confined to

conferring a power of entry and search of premises for the purpose of

arresting persons under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism

(Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.  This latter provision expressly

limits powers of arrest without a warrant to cases in which there are

"reasonable grounds" for suspicion.

COMPLAINTS

        The first seven applicants complain that their arrests were in

breach of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention.  In particular, they

state that their arrests were solely for the purpose of interrogating

them, rather than for the purpose of bringing them before a competent

legal authority, and that their detention was not justified under

Article 5 para. 1 (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Convention.  They

further complain that section 11 permitted arrest and detention solely

on grounds of suspicion, as opposed to the requirement of reasonable

suspicion under Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention.  Reliance is

placed on the finding of the Court in the aforementioned Fox, Campbell

and Hartley judgment.  The applicants also complain that they were not

informed promptly of the reasons for their arrest as required by

Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention.  They allege that since the

provisions of the Convention are not part of the domestic law they

were not able to bring any proceedings to determine the lawfulness of

their arrest and detention and that they were therefore denied an

enforceable right to compensation in breach of Article 5 para. 5.  The

applicants claim that the lack of an enforceable right to compensation

constituted a breach of Article 13.  As regards domestic remedies, the

applicants accept that the arresting officers had a suspicion that the

applicants were terrorists and that the arrests were executed lawfully

under Northern Ireland law.  They point out that there was no

derogation under Article 15 of the Convention in existence at the

material time.

        The last six applicants effectively limit their complaint to a

breach of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, in particular Article 5

para. 1 (c).  They claim that their arrests were not based on any

reasonable suspicion of them having committed offences, the domestic

law only providing for a subjective evaluation by the arresting

officers acting on an honest and genuine suspicion.  They also allege

that their arrests were not for the purpose of bringing them before a

competent court but merely for the purpose of interrogating them.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The first application was introduced on 27 January 1987 and

registered on 2 February 1987.

        The second application was introduced on 6 February 1987 and

registered on 17 February 1987.

        The third application was introduced on 13 March 1987 and

registered on 24 March 1987.

        The fourth application was introduced on 1 May 1987 and

registered on 5 May 1987.

        The fifth application was introduced on 1 June 1987 and

registered on 9 June 1987.

        The sixth application was introduced on 2 June 1987 and

registered on 12 June 1987.

        The seventh application was introduced on 18 September 1987

and registered on 28 September 1987.

        The eighth, ninth and tenth applications were introduced on

14 May 1987 and registered on 28 September 1987.

        The eleventh application was introduced on 10 August 1987 and

registered on 19 October 1987.

        The twelfth application was introduced on 1 October 1987 and

registered on 26 January 1988.

        The thirteenth application was introduced on 25 June 1987 and

registered on 26 January 1988.

        After a preliminary examination of the cases by the

Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the first,

second and fourth applications on 7 October 1987.  The Commission

decided, pursuant to Rule 42 of its Rules of Procedure (former

version), to give notice of the applications to the respondent

Government, but without inviting the parties to submit written

observations at that stage pending the outcome of the case of Fox,

Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, at that time pending

before the Commission and, subsequently, the Court.  In the meantime

the examination of the three applications was adjourned.  The

Commission took a similar decision in the other 10 cases on 6 May

1989.        The Court gave its judgment in the above-mentioned case on 30

August 1990 (Eur.  Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30

August 1990, Series A no. 182).  On 7 September 1990 the Commission

decided to invite the parties to submit written observations on the

cases in the light of that judgment within similar time limits.

        Messrs.  John Fahy & Co., on behalf of the last six applicants,

submitted their observations on 7 November 1990.  The Government

submitted their observations on 4 January 1991 after an extension of

the time limit.  Messrs.  Madden & Finucane, on behalf of the first

seven applicants, submitted their observations on 12 February 1991,

after the expiry of the time limit, followed by an extension.

        On 10 April 1991 the Commission decided to refer the

applications to the Second Chamber.

THE LAW

1.      As regards the applicants' complaints under Article 5

        para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

        The applicants complain that their arrests and detention under

section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978

were in breach of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, in

particular Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c).

        The applicants' first contention is that they were not

arrested for the purpose of bringing them before a competent legal

authority, but merely for the purpose of interrogating them.  Their

second contention concerns the absence of any standard of reasonable

suspicion in the legislation which authorised their detention.

Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provision) Act 1978 did

not require the arresting officer to hold a reasonable suspicion that

the applicants had committed any criminal offences.  The absence of

the requirement of reasonableness was, in their submission, given the

Court's judgment in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, in breach of

Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.  The Government

contend, inter alia, that, although the legislation did not require

reasonable suspicion on arrest, in each of the present cases the

arresting officers had held reasonable suspicions that the applicants

had committed terrorist offences, even if the Government were unable

to disclose the sources of information upon which part of those

suspicions were based without jeopardising such sources.

        The relevant part of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

provides as follows:

        "1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of

        person.  No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in

        the following cases and in accordance with a procedure

        prescribed by law:

        ...

        (c)  the lawful arrest or detention of a person

        effected for the purpose of bringing him before the

        competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of

        having committed an offence ..."

        The Commission notes that there is no dispute that the

applicants' arrests and detention were "lawful" under Northern Ireland

law and finds no reason to doubt that the arresting officers had a

suspicion that the applicants had committed, or were involved in,

terrorist offences.

        The Commission recalls that it is essential that the arrest

and detention under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) be based on a

reasonable suspicion that the person concerned has committed or has

been involved in the commission of a criminal offence.  This standard

of reasonableness and its absence from section 11 of the 1978 Act was

examined by the Court in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case:

        "32.  The 'reasonableness' of the suspicion on which an arrest

        must be based forms an essential part of the safeguard against

        arbitrary arrest and detention which is laid down in Article

        5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c).  The Court agrees with the

        Commission and the Government that having a 'reasonable suspicion'

        presupposes the existence of facts or information which would

        satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have

        committed the offence.  What may be regarded as 'reasonable'

        will however depend upon all the circumstances.

        In this respect, terrorist crime falls into a special

        category.  Because of the attendant risk of loss of life and

        human suffering, the police are obliged to act with utmost

        urgency in following up all information, including

        information from secret sources.  Further, the police may

        frequently have to arrest a suspected terrorist on the basis

        of information which is reliable but which cannot, without

        putting in jeopardy the source of the information, be

        revealed to the suspect or produced in court to support a

        charge.

        As the Government pointed out, in view of the difficulties

        inherent in the investigation and prosecution of

        terrorist-type offences in Northern Ireland, the

        'reasonableness' of the suspicion justifying such arrests

        cannot always be judged according to the same standards as

        are applied in dealing with conventional crime.  Nevertheless,

        the exigencies of dealing with terrorist crime cannot

        justify stretching the notion of 'reasonableness' to the

        point where the essence of the safeguard secured by Article

        5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) is impaired (see, mutatis

        mutandis, the Brogan and Others judgment previously cited,

        Series A no. 145-B, pp. 32-33, para. 59).

        ...

        34.  Certainly Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the

        Convention should not be applied in such a manner as to put

        disproportionate difficulties in the way of the police

        authorities of the Contracting States in taking effective

        measures to counter organised terrorism (see, mutatis

        mutandis, the Klass and Others judgment of 6 September 1978,

        Series A no. 28, pp. 27 and 30-31, paras. 58 and

        68).  It follows that the Contracting States cannot be asked

        to establish the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding

        the arrest of a suspected terrorist by disclosing the

        confidential sources of supporting information or even facts

        which would be susceptible of indicating such sources or

        their identity. Nevertheless the Court must be enabled to

        ascertain whether the essence of the safeguard afforded by

        Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) has been secured.

        Consequently the respondent Government have to furnish at

        least some facts or information capable of satisfying the

        Court that the arrested person was reasonably suspected of

        having committed the alleged offence.  This is all the more

        necessary where, as in the present case, the domestic law

        does not require reasonable suspicion, but sets a lower

        threshold by merely requiring honest suspicion.

        35.  The Court accepts that the arrest and detention of each

        of the present applicants was based on a bona fide suspicion

        that he or she was a terrorist, and that each of them,

        including Mr.  Hartley, was questioned during his or her

        detention about specific terrorist acts of which he or she

        was suspected.

        The fact that Mr.  Fox and Ms.  Campbell both have previous

        convictions for acts of terrorism connected with the IRA,

        although it could reinforce a suspicion linking them to the

        commission of terrorist-type offences, cannot form the sole

        basis of a suspicion justifying their arrest in 1986, some

        seven years later.

        The fact that all the applicants, during their detention, were

        questioned about specific terrorist acts, does no more than

        confirm that the arresting officers had a genuine suspicion

        that they had been involved in those acts, but it cannot

        satisfy an objective observer that the applicants may have

        committed these acts.

        The aforementioned elements on their own are insufficient to

        support the conclusion that there was 'reasonable suspicion'.

        The Government have not provided any further material on which

        the suspicion against the applicants was based.  Their

        explanations therefore do not meet the minimum standard set

        by Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) for judging

        the reasonableness of a suspicion for the arrest of an individual.

        36.  The Court accordingly holds that there has been a breach

        of Article 5 para. 1. ..."(Art. 5-1)

        (Eur.  Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of

        30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 16-18 paras. 32,

        34-36).

        In the light of this judgment, the Commission finds that the

present applicants' complaint about the alleged lack of reasonable

suspicion preceding their arrests and detention cannot be declared

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

        The Commission also finds that the applicants' other complaint

under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) about the purpose of their arrests,

allegedly for mere questioning, rather than for the purpose of

bringing them before a competent legal authority, cannot be separated

at this stage from their complaint concerning the reasonableness of

the suspicion against them.  There are, therefore, no grounds for

declaring this part of the applications inadmissible.

2.      The other complaints of the first seven applicants

        a)  As regards Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention

        The first seven applicants have next complained that they were

not informed promptly of the reasons for their arrests, as required by

Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention.  The Government rely on the

findings of the Court in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case:  Whilst

the applicants were told on arrest that they were being arrested under

section 11 of the 1978 Act, thereafter, during their interviews with

the police, it must have become clear to the applicants why they had

been arrested and the reasons why they were suspected of being

terrorists.  Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention does not

necessarily require this information to be related in its entirety by

the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest.  The fact that

a few hours elapsed before they were interviewed could not be regarded

as falling outside the constraints of time imposed by the notion of

promptness in Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) (ibid pp. 19-20, paras.

40-43).

        Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention provides as follows:

        "Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a

        language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest

        and of any charge against him."

        The Commission notes that the first seven applicants were only

initially informed that they were being arrested under section 11 of

the 1978 Act.  Within a few hours of their arrest, however, they were

intensively interviewed about specific terrorist incidents or their

involvement in terrorist groups.  There is no reason to doubt that

from these interviews they could have understood why they were being

arrested.  The only issue distinguishing some of the present cases

from that of Fox, Campbell and Hartley is whether the requirement of

promptness was satisfied, given the delays between the initial arrests

and the commencement of the applicants' interviews.  Questioning began

in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, at the latest, 4 hours and 35

minutes after arrest.  In the present cases, apart from the third and

sixth applicants, who were interviewed within less than 4 hours and 35

minutes of arrest, the other five applicants were interviewed later

than this:  The first applicant was interviewed 5 hours after arrest,

the second 5 hours and 15 minutes later, the fourth and fifth 5 hours

55 minutes later, and the seventh the day after his arrest, 14 hours

50 minutes later.

        However, the Commission finds that where the applicants were

interviewed within six hours of their arrest it cannot be said that

the requirement of promptness in Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the

Convention was not respected.  It follows that the complaint of the

first six applicants under Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the

Convention is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

        The complaint of the seventh applicant, who was not

interviewed until the following day, cannot be so rejected.  Moreover,

no other ground for declaring his complaint under Article 5 para. 2

(Art. 5-2) of the Convention inadmissible has been established.

        b)  As regards Articles 5 para. 5 and 13 (Art. 5-5, 13) of the

Convention

        The first seven applicants also complain that they had no

enforceable right to compensation under domestic law for the alleged

breach of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.  They invoke

Articles 5 para. 5 and 13 (Art. 5-5, 13) of the Convention which

provide as follows:

        Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5-) :

        "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."

        Article 13 (Art. 13) :

        "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in

        this Convention are violated shall have an effective

        remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that

        the violation has been committed by persons acting in an

        official capacity."

        The Commission recalls that in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley

case the Court found a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the

Convention in that the applicants had not had a right to compensation

under domestic law in respect of the violation of Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) of the Convention (ibid. p. 21 para. 46).  In the light of

this finding and the similar allegations made by the present

applicants, the Commission finds that the applicants' complaint under

Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention cannot be declared

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art.

27-2) of the Convention.  No other ground for declaring this aspect of

the cases inadmissible has been established.

        The Commission also finds that the applicants' complaint

regarding Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention raises no separate issue,

Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) being the lex specialis under the Convention

regarding the right to compensation for alleged breaches of the other

provisions of Article 5 (Art. 5).

        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of

        the cases,

        -  by a majority, the applicants' complaints under Article 5

           para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention ;

        -  by a majority, the first seven applicants' complaints

           under Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention ;

        -  unanimously, the seventh applicant's complaint under

           Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention (regarding

           promptness of information) ;

        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE, unanimously, the remainder of the

        applications.

        Secretary to the                        President of the

         Second Chamber                          Second Chamber

           (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)