Search
document

Document text Analytics

TYRER CASE

Doc ref: 5856/72 • ECHR ID: 001-55404

Document date: October 13, 1978

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

TYRER CASE

Doc ref: 5856/72 • ECHR ID: 001-55404

Document date: October 13, 1978

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Having regard to 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 "Tyrer" case, delivered on 25 April 1978 and transmitted

the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case had its origin in an application against

the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights

under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention by a United Kingdom citizen,

Mr Anthony M. Tyrer, resident in the Isle of Man, alleging a violation

of the convention because of a judicial corporal punishment inflicted

upon him on the basis of legislation in force in the Isle of Man, a

dependency of the British Crown, to which the convention was extended

by a declaration of the United Kingdom made in pursuance of Article 63

(art. 63) of the convention;

Recalling that the case had been brought on 11 March 1977 before

the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights;

Whereas in its judgment, the Court held

- by six votes to one that the judicial corporal punishment

inflicted on Mr Tyrer amounted to degrading punishment within the

meaning of Article 3 (art. 3);

- unanimously that in the case there were no local requirements

within the meaning of Article 63, paragraph 3 (art. 63-3), which could

affect the application of Article 3 (art. 3);

- by six votes to one that the said punishment accordingly violated

Article 3 (art. 3);

- unanimously that it was not necessary to examine the question of

a possible violation of Article 3 taken together with Article 14

(art. 14-3);

- unanimously that it was not necessary to apply Article 50

(art. 50) in the present case;

Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of

Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention";

Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it

of the measures which it had 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 United Kingdom informed the Committee

of certain measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which

information appears in the Appendix to this resolution,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by

the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution (78) 39

Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom

No measure of execution is required in respect of the individual

applicant, Mr Tyrer. However, in so far as the decision of the Court

raises a general issue because of the risk of further applications in

the event of further sentences of birching being inflicted, the

Committee may like to be informed of the measures taken by the United

Kingdom Government. As soon as the decision of the Court was known,

the United Kingdom Government communicated it to the Government of the

Isle of Man and thereafter, on 13 June, they informed the Lieutenant

Governor of that island that, having studied the judgment of the

Court, it was their view that judicial corporal punishment in the Isle

of Man must now be held to be in breach of the European Convention on

Human Rights.

Subsequently the Chief Justice of the Isle of Man (the First

Deemster) took action to bring the judgment of the Court to the

attention of the High Court, the High Bailiffs and the Magistrates,

that is to the attention of all persons who under existing legislation

could pass a sentence of birching. He has informed them that the

effect of the judgment is that judical corporal punishment must now be

held to be in breach of the European Convention.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant