Volume 184 - 2019
Front matter
Prelims
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. i-iv
-
- Article
- Export citation
Contents
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. v-vi
-
- Article
- Export citation
Preface
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. vii-viii
-
- Article
- Export citation
Editorial Note
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. ix-xi
-
- Article
- Export citation
Table of Cases Reported: Alphabetical
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, p. xiii
-
- Article
- Export citation
Table of Cases Reported: Arranged According to Courts and Tribunals (International Cases) and Countries (Municipal Cases)
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, p. xv
-
- Article
- Export citation
Digest of Cases: List of Main Headings
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, p. xvii
-
- Article
- Export citation
Digest of Cases Reported in Volume 184
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. xix-xxxiv
-
- Article
- Export citation
Table of Treaties
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. xxxv-xxxviii
-
- Article
- Export citation
Case Report
Ireland v. United Kingdom (Request for Revision of Judgment of 18 January 1978)
- European Court of Human Rights. 20 March 2018
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 1-94
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
International tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction — Finality of judgments — Principle of legal certainty — Article 44 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Revision — Exceptional procedure — Rule 80(1) of Rules of Court — Whether revision request submitted within six-month time limit — Scope of revision request — Whether revision request permissible — Whether documents submitted by applicant Government disclosing new facts — Whether any new facts of decisive influence on findings in original judgment — Whether new facts unknown to Court when original judgment delivered — Whether new facts could not reasonably have been known to applicant Government requesting revision — Whether original judgment requiring revision to include finding of practice of torture as well as inhuman and degrading treatment
Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Interrogation techniques — Whether constituting practice of inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether constituting practice of torture — Commission establishing facts of case — Commission unanimous opinion that practice constituting inhuman and degrading treatment and torture — Original judgment finding practice of inhuman and degrading treatment only — Documentation later coming to knowledge of applicant Government — Medical evidence — Non-disclosure evidence — Whether documentation might have decisively influenced original judgment — Whether original judgment requiring revision to include finding of practice of torture also — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Rule 80(1) of Rules of Court — Applicant Government requesting revision of original judgment — Documents from archives — Medical evidence — Non-disclosure evidence — Applicant Government claiming documents demonstrating new facts — Whether new facts of decisive influence — Whether new facts unknown to Court at time of original judgment — Whether new facts could reasonably have been known to applicant Government — Revision — Exceptional procedure — Principle of legal certainty — Whether documents submitted in support of revision request providing sufficient prima facie evidence in support of applicant Government’s version of events
McKerr v. United Kingdom
- European Court of Human Rights. 4 May 2001
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 95-167
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Substantive obligation — Procedural obligation — Alleged unlawful killing by State agents — Use of force falling within ambit of Article 2 of Convention — Whether use of force pursuing one of purposes set out in Article 2(2) — Whether absolutely necessary for that purpose — Key factual issues to be determined — Role of European Court of Human Rights — Whether effective investigation into circumstances of death — Whether respondent State failing to comply with procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 — Whether respondent State violating Article 2 of Convention
Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 — Use of lethal force by State agents in Northern Ireland — Whether use of force absolutely necessary for one of Article 2(2) purposes — Key factual issues to be determined — Role of European Court of Human Rights — Role of domestic civil courts — Ability of domestic courts to establish facts and determine whether death lawful — Procedures for investigating — Whether disclosing shortcomings — Whether domestic remedies exhausted — Civil proceedings — Examination of facts, determination of liability and awarding of compensation — Whether civil proceedings providing redress
State responsibility — State agents using lethal force in Northern Ireland — Whether State responsible for death of Mr McKerr — Use of force falling within ambit of Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether use of force pursuing one of purposes set out in Article 2(2) — Whether absolutely necessary for that purpose — Key factual issues to be determined — Role of European Court of Human Rights — Obligations of State under Article 2 — Awarding of damages alone insufficient — Whether respondent State failing to comply with procedural obligation under Article 2 of Convention
Terrorism — Anti-terrorism operations — Alleged unlawful killing by State agents — Whether shoot-to-kill policy operating in Northern Ireland in 1980s — Whether killing or arresting of terrorist suspects — Whether Royal Ulster Constabulary police officers acting on honest belief of being at risk from men at time of killing — Key factual issues to be determined — Role of European Court of Human Rights — Role of domestic civil courts — Whether effective investigation into circumstances of death — Whether respondent State failing to comply with procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Article 2 of Convention
Human rights — Discrimination — Use of lethal force by State agents — Majority of those killed belonging to Catholic or nationalist community — General policy having disproportionately prejudicial effects on particular group — Whether having to be aimed at that group — Whether discriminatory practice being disclosed by statistics alone — Whether evidence before Court to suggest killings involving unlawful or excessive use of force by security forces — Whether respondent State violating Article 14 of Convention
Human rights — Remedies — Whether applicant having effective remedy in respect of complaint — Cases involving use of lethal force or suspicious death — Requirement of payment of compensation if appropriate — Whether appropriate — Whether thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to identification and punishment of those responsible — Whether effective access for complainant to investigation procedure — Whether domestic remedies exhausted — Whether civil proceedings providing redress — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention
Damages — Compensation — Non-pecuniary damages — Whether award appropriate — Whether finding as to lawfulness or proportionality of use of force — Whether national authorities fulfilling obligation to carry out prompt and effective investigation into circumstances of death — Whether compensation of finding of violation of Convention sufficient — Whether applicant entitled to damages in respect of unlawful deprivation of life of his father
El-Masri v. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
- European Court of Human Rights. 13 December 2012
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 168-280
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Abduction — Extraordinary rendition — Disappearance — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 8, 10 and 13 of Convention — Preliminary objection raised by respondent State — Whether compliance with six-month time limit under Article 35(1) of Convention — Admissibility of complaints — Obligation of respondent State to ensure individuals within its jurisdiction not subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of Convention — Whether respondent State responsible for alleged ill-treatment of applicant by United States’ agents while applicant in respondent State — Respondent State transferring applicant into custody of United States’ authorities — Whether respondent State failing in obligation to assess whether real risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 of Convention — Whether respondent State responsible for alleged ill-treatment of applicant while detained in Afghanistan — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s captivity in Afghanistan under Article 5 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 10 of Convention
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts — Standard of proof — Whether approach of national legal systems relevant — Role and approach of Court — Article 19 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Burden of proof — Case law under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Whether considerations applying to examination of disappearances under Article 5 of Convention — Allegations under Article 3 of Convention — Relevance of domestic proceedings and investigations — Whether burden of proof shifting to respondent Government — Whether respondent Government discharging burden — Whether applicant subjected to extraordinary rendition by agents of United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether agents of respondent State assisting — Whether applicant’s allegations sufficiently convincing and established beyond reasonable doubt — Whether respondent State violating Articles 3, 5, 8, 13 and 10 of Convention
Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of ill-treatment by applicant — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether respondent State failing to carry out effective investigation of applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 on account of inhuman and degrading treatment of applicant in hotel — Whether respondent State responsible for ill-treatment of applicant at Skopje Airport — Whether treatment constituting torture — Responsibility of respondent State with regard to applicant’s transfer into custody of United States’ authorities despite real risk of further ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Convention
Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of arbitrary detention by applicant — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 by its own agents and/or foreign agents operating in its territory and under its jurisdiction — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Substantive aspect of Article 5 — Whether applicant’s detention in respondent State in conformity with Article 5 requirements — Whether complying with domestic law — Whether applicant having access to representative of German embassy in respondent State — Article 36(1)(b) of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 — Whether applicant’s subsequent detention in Afghanistan imputable to respondent State — Extraordinary rendition — Whether detention of terrorist suspects by United States’ authorities arbitrary — Whether real risk of flagrant violation of Article 5 rights if applicant handed over by Macedonian authorities to United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether applicant’s abduction and detention amounting to enforced disappearance under international law — Procedural aspect of Article 5 — Whether effective investigation into applicant’s allegations of unlawful and arbitrary detention — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention
Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant separated from family while abducted and detained — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Whether extending to situations of deprivation of liberty — Whether interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention
Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining of lack of effective remedy in respect of grievances under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Whether any other remedy effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State assessing risk of ill-treatment before transferring applicant to United States Central Intelligence Agency agents — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention
Consular relations — Right to consular access — Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963, Article 36(1)(b) — Applicant’s detention in respondent State — Whether complying with Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether complying with domestic law — Whether complying with international law — Whether applicant having access to representative of German embassy in respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention
Terrorism — Investigation of terrorist offences — Extraordinary rendition — Arbitrary detention — Whether detention of terrorist suspects by United States’ authorities arbitrary — Macedonian authorities handing over applicant to agents of United States Central Intelligence Agency — Whether real risk of flagrant violation of applicant’s rights under Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant’s subsequent detention in Afghanistan imputable to respondent State — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention
Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Serious violations of several provisions of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violations sufficient — Article 41 of Convention
Al Nashiri v. Poland
- European Court of Human Rights. 24 July 2014
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 281-550
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Human rights — Jurisdiction — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — General duty of Contracting States under Article 1 of Convention — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant complaining respondent State violating his rights under Articles 3, 5, 6(1), 8, 10 and 13 of Convention, and Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Respondent State raising preliminary objection — Whether non-exhaustion of domestic remedies — Whether to be joined to merits — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities under Article 38 of Convention — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged in respect of applicant at material time — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s treatment and detention by foreign officials on its territory — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s removal from its territory — Whether respondent State violating Convention
Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of ill-treatment by applicant — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether respondent State failing to carry out effective investigation of applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment when in United States custody on territory of respondent State — Substantive aspects of Article 3 — Whether derogation from Article 3 permitted in difficult circumstances of terrorism — Whether respondent State complicit in United States Central Intelligence Agency High-Value Detainees Programme — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to subject applicant to torture and ill-treatment on its territory — Whether treatment amounting to torture — Whether respondent State enabling United States authorities to transfer applicant from its territory despite existence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 — Whether respondent State violating Article 3 of Convention
Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Allegations of arbitrary detention by applicant — Applicant’s detention on territory of respondent State — Whether real risk of further undisclosed detention following transfer by United States authorities enabled by respondent State — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Removal of legal protection and safeguards from individuals — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Programme requiring cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for applicant’s detention on its territory — Respondent State enabling transfer of applicant from its territory to Central Intelligence Agency secret detention facilities — Whether respondent State responsible for exposing applicant to foreseeable serious risk of detention conditions not complying with Convention — Whether respondent State violating Article 5 of Convention
Human rights — Right to respect for private and family life — Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant separated from family while detained and transferred — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Notion of private life — Whether covering person’s moral and physical integrity — Acts and omissions of respondent State in respect of applicant’s detention and transfer — Whether amounting to interference with applicant’s right in accordance with law — Whether respondent State’s responsibility engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 8 of Convention
Human rights — Right to an effective remedy — Article 13 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining of lack of effective remedy in respect of grievances under Article 3 of Convention — Admissibility of applicant’s complaints — Complaint linked to complaint under procedural aspect of Article 3 — Whether complaints arguable — Whether criminal investigation effective — Requirements of Article 13 — Whether respondent State violating Article 13 of Convention
Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6(1) of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of flagrant denial of justice — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether United States military commission guaranteeing impartiality and independence — Whether United States military commission “established by law” — Probability of admission of evidence obtained by torture — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention
Terrorism — Terrorist suspects — Extraordinary rendition — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Cooperation of host countries and overseas detention facilities — High-Value Detainees Programme — Secret detention of terrorist suspects — Ill-treatment of terrorist suspects — Applicant detained in CIA-run secret detention facility in respondent State — Applicant ill-treated by CIA — Applicant transferred by CIA from respondent State — Complicity of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether respondent State violating European Convention on Human Rights, 1950
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Procedure and rules of Court — Treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 38 — Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities — Whether respondent State complying — Confidentiality and national security issues — Relevance — Whether respondent State’s refusal to submit evidence based on alleged lack of procedural safeguards justified — Whether domestic law justifying refusal to submit evidence — Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Articles 25(d) and 26 — Whether Court entitled to draw inferences from respondent State’s conduct
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Assessment of evidence and establishment of facts — Standard of proof — Whether approach of national legal systems relevant — Role and approach of Court — Article 19 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Burden of proof — Case law under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Extreme secrecy surrounding United States’ rendition operations — Respondent Government’s failure to cooperate — Circumstantial evidence — Whether respondent State’s responsibility under Article 1 of Convention engaged — Whether respondent State responsible for securing Convention rights for applicant at material time
State responsibility — Principles under European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Responsibility of respondent State under Article 1 of Convention — Principles deriving from case law of European Court of Human Rights — United States Central Intelligence Agency rendition programme — High-Value Detainees Programme — Programme operating outside United States’ jurisdiction — Responsibility of State under Convention for acts performed by foreign officials on its territory with acquiescence or connivance of its authorities — Responsibility of State where individual removed from its territory exposed to foreseeable violation of Convention rights in country of destination — Whether real risk of flagrant breach of Convention rights in destination country — Role of respondent State — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to detention on its territory — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged with respect to transfer from its territory — Whether complaints and extent to which events complained of imputable to respondent State could be examined
Evidence before international courts and tribunals — European Court of Human Rights — Evidence obtained by torture — Whether admissible in criminal trial — Legal systems based on rule of law — Trial process cornerstone of rule of law — Whether admission of evidence obtained by torture irreparably damaging trial process — Whether evidence obtained by torture reliable — Whether flagrant denial of justice if evidence obtained by torture admitted in criminal trial — Probability of United States military commission admitting evidence obtained by torture — Whether real risk that trial before United States military commission would be flagrant denial of justice — Whether responsibility of respondent State engaged — Whether respondent State violating Article 6(1) of Convention
Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 3 of Convention — Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention — Abolition of death penalty — Applicant complaining transfer from respondent State’s territory exposing him to real risk of imposition of death penalty — Admissibility of applicant’s complaint — Extradition — Extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorist facing capital charges — Whether substantial and foreseeable risk applicant would be subjected to death penalty following trial before United States military commission — Whether acts and omissions of respondent State engaging its responsibility under Convention — Whether respondent State required to seek appropriate diplomatic assurances from United States under Article 46 of Convention — Whether respondent State violating Articles 2 and 3 of Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No 6 to Convention
Damages — Non-pecuniary damage — Serious violations of several provisions of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant suffering non-pecuniary damage — Whether finding of violations sufficient — Article 41 of Convention
In re McKerr
- United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. 11 March 2004
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 551-587
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Application — Unincorporated treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether Convention part of domestic law — Convention rights — Article 2 — Right to life — Substantive obligation — Procedural obligation — Procedural obligation requiring State to carry out effective official investigation into circumstances of death — Obligations imposed on United Kingdom public authorities by Section 6 of Human Rights Act 1998 — Death occurring in 1982 — Human Rights Act 1998 entering into force on 2 October 2000 — Whether 1998 Act retrospective — Whether Section 6(1) of 1998 Act applying to unlawful killing occurring before Act coming into force — Whether appropriate for Court to compel Article 2 compliant investigation — Customary international law — Whether common law right corresponding to procedural right implicit in Article 2 of Convention — Whether United Kingdom having duty to investigate deaths occurring before 2 October 2000
Human rights — Right to life — Convention rights — Substantive obligation — Procedural obligation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 — Human Rights Act 1998 — Rights arising under Convention — Rights created by Human Rights Act 1998 — Whether distinguishable — Whether unincorporated treaty creating rights or obligations in domestic law — Whether Section 6(1) of 1998 Act applying to unlawful killing occurring before Act coming into force — Whether United Kingdom having duty to investigate deaths occurring before 2 October 2000 — The law of Northern Ireland
Re Application by Finucane for Judicial Review
- United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. 21 February 2017
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 588-655
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Human rights — Right to life — Article 2 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Substantive obligation — Procedural obligation — Procedural obligation requiring State to carry out effective official investigation into circumstances of death — Human Rights Act 1998 entering into force on 2 October 2000 — Murder occurring in Northern Ireland in February 1989 — Allegations of State collusion — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Janowiec — Whether genuine connection test satisfied — Whether valid claim that Article 2 obligation arising under Strasbourg jurisprudence — New evidence — Whether new evidence capable of reviving Article 2 obligation — Whether State complying with Article 2 obligation under Strasbourg jurisprudence — Whether United Kingdom court having jurisdiction to entertain claim — Whether public inquiry required
Treaties — Application — Human rights treaties — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Right to life — Article 2 — Substantive obligation — Procedural obligation — Procedural obligation requiring State to carry out effective official investigation into circumstances of death — Human Rights Act 1998 — Death occurring before Human Rights Act 1998 entered into force on 2 October 2000 — Whether procedural obligation arising — Strasbourg jurisprudence — Janowiec — Whether genuine connection test satisfied — Whether both criteria satisfied — Whether valid claim that Article 2 obligation arising under Strasbourg jurisprudence — New evidence — Whether new evidence capable of reviving Article 2 obligation — Whether State complying with Article 2 obligation under Strasbourg jurisprudence — Whether United Kingdom court having jurisdiction to entertain claim — Whether public inquiry required
Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Human Rights Act 1998 entering into force on 2 October 2000 — Murder occurring in Northern Ireland in February 1989 — Allegations of State collusion — Article 2 of Convention — Substantive obligation — Procedural obligation — Procedural obligation requiring State to carry out effective official investigation into circumstances of death — Article 2 obligation under Strasbourg jurisprudence — Whether valid claim — New evidence — Whether procedural obligation capable of being revived — State compliance — Whether United Kingdom court having jurisdiction to entertain claim — Whether public inquiry required — The law of Northern Ireland
Re Application by McGuigan for Judicial Review; Re Application by McKenna for Judicial Review
- United Kingdom, Northern Ireland. 27 October 2017
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 656-746
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Human rights — Prohibition on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment — Whether use of torture in Northern Ireland authorized by United Kingdom Government — Whether evidence to warrant investigation — Articles 2 and 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Investigative or procedural aspect — Duty to investigate — Standard of scrutiny — Nature and severity of case — Whether State enjoying margin of appreciation — Independence of investigation — Allegation that United Kingdom Government authorizing use of torture in Northern Ireland — Whether respondents failing to ensure full, independent and effective investigation into use of torture under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention, common law and customary international law — Whether Northern Ireland complying with Convention
Relationship of international law and municipal law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Articles 2 and 3 — Human Rights Act 1998 coming into force on 2 October 2000 — Investigative or procedural aspect of Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Events occurring in 1970s — Events pre-dating coming into force of Human Rights Act 1998 — Whether breach of Articles 2 and 3 of Convention — Whether enforceable under domestic law — Governing authority — In re McKerr — In re Finucane — Whether investigation required under common law — Whether investigation required under customary international law — Whether customary international law imposing obligation at common law to investigate conduct constituting torture or inhuman or degrading treatment — Whether Strasbourg Court or domestic court best placed to assess whether misled by United Kingdom Government
Terrorism — Northern Ireland in 1970s — Detainees suspected of terrorist activity — Allegation that United Kingdom Government authorizing use of torture in Northern Ireland — Whether State having duty to investigate — Articles 2 and 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Investigative or procedural aspect — Whether evidence to warrant investigation — Whether respondents failing to ensure full, independent and effective investigation into use of torture under Articles 2 and 3 of Convention, common law and customary international law — Whether Northern Ireland complying with Convention — The law of Northern Ireland
Index
Index
-
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 01 January 2021, pp. 747-786
-
- Article
- Export citation