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 applications lodged by Mr Bernard Leo McVeigh,

Mr Oliver Anthony O'Neill and Mr Arthur Walter Evans against the

United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 8022/77, 8025/77 and 8027/77);

Whereas on 24 April 1981 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 their applications introduced on 29 July 1977, the

applicants complained of having been arrested and detained for

"examination" under the "Prevention of Terrorism" legislation in force

in the United Kingdom, of various measures, such as fingerprinting and

photography, taken during their detention and of the retention by the

authorities of certain records following their release, two of the

applicants, Mr McVeigh and Mr Evans, also complaining that they were not

allowed to join or contact their wives;

Whereas the applicants alleged breaches of Articles 5, paragraphs 1-5

(art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4, art. 5-5), 8 and 10 (art. 8,

art. 10) of the Convention;

Whereas the Commission, after having ordered the joinder of the three

applications, declared them admissible on 8 December 1979;

Whereas the Commission, in its report adopted on 18 March 1981,

expressed the opinion by thirteen votes to one that there had been no

breach of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 3 (art. 5-1, art. 5-3) of the

Convention, by thirteen votes with one abstention that there had been

no breach of Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), by twelve votes with

two abstentions that there had been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 4

(art. 5-4), by thirteen votes with one abstention that there had

been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), by unanimity that

the measures such as fingerprinting taken during the applicants'

detention had not been in breach of Article 8 (art. 8), by eleven

votes to one with two abstentions that the retention of records after

release had not been in breach of Article 8 (art. 8), by unanimity

that the fact that the applicants McVeigh and Evans had been prevented

from joining their wives involved no breach of Article 8 (art. 8) and

by twelve votes to two that the fact that these applicants had also

been prevented from contacting their wives involved a breach of

Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;

Whereas, during the examination of this case, the representative of the

Government of the United Kingdom drew the attention of the Committee

of Ministers to the fact that there had been a conflict of evidence as

to whether the applicants McVeigh and Evans had requested that

telephone messages be passed to their wives to say that they had been

detained, and in particular drew attention to the fact that at the

relevant time there existed a system for recording such requests but

that, in the applicants' cases, there was no record of any such

request having been made and that consequently it was the view of the

Government of the United Kingdom that the absence of any record

indicated that no such requests were in fact made by the applicants,

whilst the Commission found that the two applicants in question had

asked to contact their wives, as alleged by them, and that they had

not been allowed to do so;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance

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

Whereas the United Kingdom representative informed the Committee of

Ministers that, since the time of the applicants' detention, new

arrangements had been brought into operation following the entry into

force, in June 1978, of Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and

that these arrangements were designed to ensure that there would in

future be a full record of all requests for notification of the fact

of detention to a person named by persons detained by the police and

that, in the small number of cases where the authorities decided it

was necessary to delay such notification in the interest of the

investigation or prevention of a crime or the apprehension of

offenders, there would also be a full record of the reasons for

refusal of immediate notification;

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 been no violation of

Article 5, paragraphs 1 to 5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4,

art. 5-5) of the Convention;

b.   Decides that in this case there has been no violation of

Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the searching,

questioning, fingerprinting and photography of the applicants during

their detention, nor in relation to the retention, after the

applicants' release, of their fingerprints, photographs and

information obtained during their examination, nor in respect of the

fact that the applicants McVeigh and Evans were prevented from joining

their wives;

c.   Decides that in this case there has been a breach of Article 8

(art. 8) of the Convention insofar as the applicants McVeigh and Evans

were prevented from contacting their wives during detention;

d.   Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the

Government of the United Kingdom on the new arrangements which have

been introduced and which are set out above, that no further action is

called for in this case.