Final Resolution ResDH (2001)161 Human Rights Application No. 21387/93 Watson David against the United Kingdom

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 December 2001 at the 775 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of former Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (98) 316, adopted on 25 September 1998 in the case of Watson David against the United Kingdom, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Convention due to the delay in reviewing the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention after the expiry of his tariff of 15 years, and due to the impossibility to claim compensation for unlawful detention; and also decided to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights; Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 30 October 1999; Whereas at the 695th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 14 February 2000, in accordance with former Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the government of the respondent state was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 1 000 pounds Sterling in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 8 300 pounds Sterling in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 9 300 pounds Sterling, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant; Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the government of the respondent state to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 25 September 1998 and 14 February 2000, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under former Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them; Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the government of the respondent state recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as those found in this case, notably through the amendment in 1991 of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 which enabled henceforth all persons in the applicant’s position to have their cases heard by the Parole Board immediately after the expiry of their tariff (see Resolution DH(92)24 in the case Thynne , Wilson & Gunnel against the United Kingdom) and indicated that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 22 June 2000, the government of the respondent state had paid the applicant the total sum of 9 300 pounds Sterling as just satisfaction, and that default interest of 20 pounds Sterling, had been made available shortly after to the applicant’s lawyer, Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under former Article 32 of the Convention in this case.