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 John Fulton Orchin against

the United Kingdom (Application No. 8435/78);

Whereas on 26 November 1982 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 1 September 1978, the

applicant complained that the proceedings against him had lasted an

unreasonable length of time, invoking Articles 3, 6 and 14 (art. 3,

art. 6, art. 14) of the Convention;

Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on

6 March 1982;

Whereas the Commission in its report adopted on 9 October 1982

expressed, as to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention, the unanimous

opinion that there was no appearance of any breach of that article;

as to Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention, the unanimous opinion

that there was no evidence that the bringing of proceedings against

the applicant, or their duration, was in any way motivated by his

political opinions or status as a member of the protestant or loyalist

community and that there was therefore no appearance of any breach of

that article either; and as to Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of

the Convention, the unanimous opinion that the applicant's allegations

that the charges were deliberately left hanging over him for improper

reasons lacked credibility and did not warrant further investigation

but, by thirteen votes to one, the opinion that the delay, which was

due to administrative error or oversight, caused the duration of the

proceedings to exceed a "reasonable time" and that there was therefore

a breach of Article 6 (art. 6);

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;

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 report, that the Director of Public Prosecutions for

Northern Ireland had issued further instructions to his staff with the

object of expediting trials and obtaining the prompt disposal of all

pending proceedings, that a practice was now in operation whereby the

listing of cases for trial on indictment, following the implementation

of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, was the responsibility

of an officer of the Northern Ireland Court Service and that it was

the duty of this officer, for which he was responsible to the Lord

Chief Justice, to list all cases committed for trial and have them

brought forward for disposal;

Noting with satisfaction the new procedures that have been introduced;

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

Articles 3 or 14 (art. 3, art. 14) of the Convention;

b.      Decides that in this case there has been a violation of

Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, and

c.      Decides that no further action is called for in this case.