Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF DUINHOF AND DUIJF

Doc ref: 9626/81;9736/82 • ECHR ID: 001-55424

Document date: December 7, 1984

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF DUINHOF AND DUIJF

Doc ref: 9626/81;9736/82 • ECHR ID: 001-55424

Document date: December 7, 1984

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in

the Duinhof and Duijf case, delivered on 22 May 1984 and transmitted

the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that this case had its origin in two applications against

the Netherlands lodged in December 1981 and February 1982 with the

European Commission of Human Rights under Article 25 (art. 25) of the

convention by two Dutch nationals, Mr Bernard Joost Duinhof and

Mr Robert Duijf, alleging violation of Article 5, paragraph 3

(art. 5-3), of the convention;

Recalling that this case had been brought before the Court by the

European Commission of Human Rights and by the Government of the

Netherlands;

Whereas in its judgment of 22 May 1984, the Court unanimously:

- Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3

(art. 5-3), in respect of each applicant;

- Holds that the respondent state is to pay to each applicant the sum

of three hundred (300) Dutch Guilders under Article 50 (art. 50);

Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54

(art. 54) of the convention";

Having invited the Government of the Netherlands to inform it of the

measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment having

regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention

to abide by the judgment;

Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of

Ministers, the Government of the Netherlands informed the Committee of

the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information

appears at the appendix to this resolution;

Having taken note of this information and having satisfied itself that

the Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants the sum

awarded by the Court under Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention,

Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 54

(art. 54) of the convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (84) 8

Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands

during the examination of the case of "Duinhof and Duijf"

by the Committee of Ministers

As a consequence of, inter alia, the complaints lodged by the

above-mentioned applicants, the Netherlands Government has taken the

following measures with respect to Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3),

of the convention:

A. In March 1983 the following regulations came into force having

been incorporated in the rules governing the application of military

penal and disciplinary law as laid down by ministerial order.

The following rules shall apply to military suspects remanded in

custody such as the conscientious objectors in question:

a. The commanding officer may order a serviceman to be remanded or

kept in custody only if two conditions are fulfilled:

1. a remand in custody must be admissible in the case in question,

2. there must be grounds for a remand in the case in question.

b. As soon as the grounds on which the remand in custody was ordered

or ordered to be continued cease to be applicable, the commanding

officer shall order the release of the defendant.

c. If the commanding officer orders the suspect to be taken into or

kept in custody, where possible subsequent to having interviewed the

suspect or having arranged for the suspect to be interviewed on his

behalf, he shall ensure that the military prosecutor is informed of

the case by telephone as soon as possible and in any event no later

than two days after the warrant of arrest is executed.

d. If the suspect is to appear before the military prosecutor, the

commanding officer shall ensure, in consultation with the military

prosecutor, that the time and place of the hearing are such that,

within four days of the execution of the warrant of arrest:

1. the military prosecutor is able to submit his recommendations to

the authority to which the case is to be referred;

2. the authority to which the case is to be referred may issue a

referral order (which shall include a ruling in respect of the

arrest);

3. the defendant may be heard by the examining officer;

4. the defendant may appear before a court martial which shall rule

at the request of the military prosecutor whether or not to uphold the

order of arrest.

B. Bills for the revision of the administration of military justice

are currently under consideration by the Lower House of Parliament.

One of the proposals is that the provisions governing remands in

custody in the Dutch criminal code should also apply to military

servicemen.

C. The Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants the

sum awarded by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 50

(art. 50) of the convention.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant