Resolution CM/ ResDH (2009)19 [1]

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Brecknell and 4 other cases against the United Kingdom

(see appendix for details)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concerns the lack of an effective investigation into allegations made concerning the involvement of members of security forces in the killing of the applicants ’ next-of-kin (violations of Article 2);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the mea s ures taken in order to comply with United Kingdom ’ s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Conve n tion to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee ’ s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the a p plicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- general measures preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ ResDH (2009)19

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Brecknell and 4 other cases against the United Kingdom

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the lack of an effective investigation into the allegations made by a certain John Weir in 1999 concerning the involvement of members of security forces in the killing of the applicants ’ next-of-kin in 1975 and 1976. An investigative response appears to have been begun by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (“RUC”) following the Weir allegations. It would appear subsequently that the RUC investigation was acknowledged as failing to progress due to the need to interview Weir directly. In November 2001 the case was transferred to the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), which is the successor of the RUC. In 2004 the case was transferred to the Serious Crime Review Team (“SCRT”) which carried out a further assessment and then referred it to the Historical Enquiries Team (“HET”) where evidence was reviewed under the supervision of a Metropolitan Police senior officer. The HET did succeed in interviewing Weir, who refused either to make a statement or to agree to give evidence in a United Kingdom court. The HET has now apparently reached the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to proceed further, although it does not appear that any formal decision has yet been issued to that effect.

The European Court found that the investigative response to Weir ’ s allegations lacked the requisite independence in its early stages because it was the RUC which was itself implicated in those allegations, as their own officers had allegedly been heavily involved. As to the subsequent steps in the investigation, the Court was satisfied that the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), which took over the case from the RUC, was institutionally distinct from its predecessor even though it inherited officers and resources. Furthermore, the applicants have not expressed any doubts about the independence of the teams which took over from 2004 (the SCRT and HET) (violations of Article 2 of the Convention).

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number

Pecuniary damage

Non-pecuniary damage

Costs and expenses

Total

Brecknell n o 32457/04

-

5 000 EUR

51 000 EUR

56 000 EUR

Paid on 20/03/2008

McCartney n o 34575/04

-

5 000 EUR

5 000 EUR

10 000 EUR

Paid on 20/03/2008

McGrath n o 34651/04

-

5 000 EUR

5 000 EUR

10 000 EUR

Paid on 20/03/2008

O ’ Dowd n o 34622/04

-

5 000 EUR

5 000 EUR

10 000 EUR

Paid on 20/03/2008

Reavey n o 34640/04

-

5 000 EUR

5 000 EUR

10 000 EUR

Paid on 20/03/2008

b) Individual measures

In these cases, the Court found a violation solely on the ground of lack of independence of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) during the initial stages of the investigation. The Court has also acknowledged that there is no doubt that the institutions which took over the investigation from the RUC from November 2001 onwards (i.e. PSNI, SCRT and HET) were independent.

Furthermore, as regards the adequacy of the subsequent steps taken in the investigation, “the Court is not persuaded that there have been any significant oversights or omissions. The key traceable witnesses have been interviewed, and the available evidence collected and reviewed. The Court is not persuaded that the apparent errors or shortcomings of the RUC identified by the applicant (§55) can be regarded as rendering the investigative process inadequate when viewed as a whole” ( Brecknell §79).

II. General measures

The judgments were reported in the European Human Rights Law Review E.H.R.L.R 4, 450-451, the Times Law Report on 7/12/2007 ( http://business.timesonline.co.uk ) and the Northern Ireland News on 28/11/ 2007 ( www.4ni.co.uk ).

As set out above, the European Court found a violation of Article 2 solely on the ground of lack of independence of the RUC. The RUC no longer exists. The PSNI is now in place and the Court found no violation in respect of the PSNI.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent new similar violations and that the United Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 9 January 2009 at the 1043rd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies