CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 14 octobre 1991

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }      EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS   SECOND CHAMBER   Application Nos. 12690/87, 12731/87, 12823/87, 12900/87, 13032/87, 13033/87, 13246/87, 13231/87, 13232/87, 13233/87, 13310/87, 13553/88 and 13555/88   James CLINTON, Sean SIMPSON, Sean MAGUIRE, Patrick McGEOWN, John MURRAY, Philip CAMPBELL, Kieran SMYTH, Guy BRESLIN, John CONNOLLY, Sean McGUINNESS, L., M. and N.   against   the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 14 October 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                       Page   I.     INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-17)                        1-4         A.   The applications (paras. 2-5)                 1-2         B.   The proceedings (paras. 6-12)                 2-3         C.   The present Report (paras. 13-17)             3-4   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 18-33)         5-12         A.   The particular circumstances of the cases     5-11           (paras. 18-30)         B.   The relevant domestic law and practice        11-12           (paras. 31-33)   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 34-54)          13-17         A.   Complaints declared admissible (para. 34)     13         B.   Points at issue (para. 35)                    13         C.   As regards Article 5 para. 1 of the           13-15           Convention (paras. 36-42)             Conclusion (para. 42)                         15         D.   As regards Article 5 para. 2 of the           15-16           (paras. 43-47)             Conclusion (para. 47)                         16         E.   As regards Article 5 para. 5 of the           17           Convention (paras. 48-51)             Conclusion (para. 51)                         17         F.   Recapitulation (paras. 52-54)                 17   Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall,                   18 joined by Mr. Schermers   APPENDIX I        History of the proceedings             19-20   APPENDIX II       Decision on the admissibility          21-38                  of the applications   I.     INTRODUCTION   1.     The following is an outline of the cases, as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.     The applications         The first seven applicants   2.     The first applicant, James Clinton, is an Irish citizen, born in 1960 and resident in Belfast.   The second applicant, Sean Simpson, is an Irish citizen, born in 1959 and resident in Belfast.   The third applicant, Sean Maguire, is an Irish citizen, born in 1957 and resident in Belfast.   The fourth applicant, Patrick McGeown, is an Irish citizen, born in 1956 and resident in Belfast.   The fifth applicant, John Murray, is an Irish citizen, born in 1950 and resident in Belfast. The sixth applicant, Philip Campbell, is an Irish citizen, born in 1957 and resident in Belfast.   The seventh applicant, Kieran Smyth, is an Irish citizen, born in 1960 and resident in Belfast.   The seven applicants are represented before the Commission by Messrs. Madden and Finucane, Solicitors, Belfast.         The other six applicants   3.     The eighth applicant, Guy Breslin, is a British citizen, born in 1968 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.   The ninth applicant, John Connolly, is an Irish citizen, born in 1968 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.   The tenth applicant, Sean McGuinness, is a British citizen, born in 1966 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone. The eleventh applicant is a British citizen, born in 1969 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.   The twelfth applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1964 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.   The thirteenth applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1962 and resident in Strabane, County Tyrone.   These six applicants are represented before the Commission by Messrs. John Fahy & Co., Solicitors, Strabane, County Tyrone.   4.     The applications are directed against the United Kingdom.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. M.C. Wood, succeeded by Mrs. A.F. Glover, both of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   5.     The cases concern the applicants' complaint that they were arrested under prevention of terrorism legislation in breach of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, their arrests having been allegedly for interrogation purposes only, rather than for the purpose of bringing them before a competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed criminal offences, as envisaged by Article 5 para. 1 (c) of the Convention.   The first seven applicants also complained that they had no enforceable right to compensation under Northern Ireland law for their arrest claim, contrary to Article 5 para. 5 of the Convention.   The seventh applicant, Kieran Smyth, further complained that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest, contrary to Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention.   (The first six applicants had made a similar complaint under Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention but the Commission (Second Chamber) had declared it inadmissible.)   B.     The proceedings   6.     The first application was introduced on 27 January 1987 and registered on 2 February 1987.   The second application was introduced on 6 February 1987 and registered on 17 February 1987.   The third application was introduced on 13 March 1987 and registered on 24 March 1987.   The fourth application was introduced on 1 May 1987 and registered on 5 May 1987.   The fifth application was introduced on 1 June 1987 and registered on 9 June 1987.   The sixth application was introduced on 2 June 1987 and registered on 12 June 1987.   The seventh application was introduced on 18 September 1987 and registered on 28 September 1987.   The eighth, ninth and tenth applications were introduced on 14 May 1987 and registered on 28 September 1987.   The eleventh application was introduced on 10 August 1987 and registered on 19 October 1987.   The twelfth application was introduced on 1 October 1987 and registered on 26 January 1988.   The thirteenth application was introduced on 25 June 1987 and registered on 26 January 1988.   7.     After a preliminary examination of the cases by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the first, second and fourth applications on 7 October 1987.   The Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 42 of its Rules of Procedure (former version), to give notice of the applications to the respondent Government, but without inviting the parties to submit written observations at that stage pending the outcome of the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, at that time pending before the Commission and, subsequently, the Court.   In the meantime the examination of the three applications was adjourned.   The Commission took a similar decision in the other 10 cases on 6 May 1989.   8.     The Court gave its judgment in the above-mentioned case on 30 August 1990 (Eur.   Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182).   On 7 September 1990 the Commission decided to invite the parties to submit written observations on the cases in the light of that judgment within similar time limits.   9.     Messrs. John Fahy & Co., on behalf of the last six applicants, submitted their observations on 7 November 1990.   The Government submitted their observations on 4 January 1991 after an extension of the time limit.   Messrs.   Madden & Finucane, on behalf of the first seven applicants, submitted their observations on 12 February 1991, after the expiry of the time limit, followed by an extension.   10.    On 10 April 1991 the Commission decided to refer the applications to the Second Chamber which on 31 May 1991 declared the first seven applications partially admissible and the remaining applications admissible.   11.    On 10 June 1991 the parties were sent the text of the Commission's decision on admissibility and they were invited to submit any further observations on the merits of the cases that they wished, including further information about the factual circumstances of the twelfth applicant's arrest.   The Government submitted further information about the latter's case on 22 July 1991.   No further observations were submitted by the applicants.   On 14 October 1991 the Commission joined the cases.   12.    After declaring the cases admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   13.    The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission (Second Chamber) in pursuance of Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            Mr.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ   14.    The text of this Report was adopted by the Commission on 14 October 1991 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   15.    The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is         1)   to establish the facts, and         2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found           disclose a breach by the State concerned of its           obligations under the Convention.   16.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the applications as APPENDIX II.   17.    The pleadings of the parties, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.     The particular circumstances of the cases   (1)    Application No. 12690/87 : James Clinton   18.    At 06.00 hours on 21 October 1986 the first applicant was arrested under section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested as a result of information received by the Royal Ulster Constabulary (the RUC) from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in a terrorist incident, an attempted murder in Ormeau Road on 3 October 1986.   Interviewing began five hours later at 11.00 hours on the day of his arrest and at that interview the first applicant was informed that he was being questioned in connection with the aforementioned attempted murder and possession of firearms. During his interviews the first applicant was questioned in connection with the circumstances of the Ormeau Road incident and it was put to him that on the night in question he was in possession of the firearm which caused the terrorist incident.   The first applicant declined to answer any questions put to him during his interviews and refused to speak at all.   At 16.20 hours on 22 October 1986 he was released without charge, within 35 hours of his arrest.   (2)    Application No. 12731/87 : Sean Simpson   19.    The second applicant was arrested at 05.45 hours on 13 January 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested as a result of information received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA).   Interviewing began five and a quarter hours later at 11.00 hours on the day of his arrest and he was told that he was being questioned in connection with his suspected membership of PIRA.   During subsequent interviews the second applicant was questioned about his membership of PIRA and, in particular, the group within PIRA which, through violence and the threat of violence, enforces discipline within that organisation.   He was further questioned about his involvement in the movement of weapons and in terrorist activities in the Belfast area.   The second applicant declined to answer any questions or to speak at all.   At 17.30 hours on 14 January 1987 he was released without charge, within 36 hours of his arrest.   (3)    Application No. 12823/87 : Sean Maguire   20.    The third applicant was arrested at 06.35 hours on 11 November 1986 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was a member of the Ardoyne PIRA and involved in certain specific terrorist crimes in the North Belfast area.   Interviewing began four hours later at 10.40 hours during which he was told he was being questioned in connection with the aforementioned matters.   He was subsequently questioned about certain specific serious terrorist crimes in the North Belfast area. The third applicant declined to answer any questions during his interviews or to speak at all.   At 14.00 hours on 13 November 1986 he was released without charge, within 56 hours of his arrest.   (At the time of his arrest, the third applicant had previous convictions for conspiracy to murder and possession of firearms and ammunition.)   (4)    Application No. 12900/87 : Patrick McGeown   21.    At 04.40 hours on 1 April 1987 the fourth applicant was arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because of information received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was a member of PIRA and had had possession of weapons and explosives in the Greater Belfast area. Interviewing began nearly six hours later at 10.35 hours on the morning of his arrest when he was informed that he was being questioned regarding his membership of PIRA and the possession of both weapons and explosives in the Greater Belfast area since he rejoined PIRA after his release from prison early in 1986.   The fourth applicant stated that he refused to answer any questions unless his solicitor was present and thereafter declined to answer any questions. At his first and subsequent interviews he was questioned at length regarding his membership of and activities within PIRA and about his knowledge of PIRA arms and explosives dumps.   He was asked how long he was out of prison before he rejoined active service with PIRA, what position he held when he rejoined and who processed his application to rejoin.   He was asked what position he presently held within PIRA and what he had done for PIRA since he rejoined.   He was also asked what future operations of PIRA he had knowledge of and about the identities of present active PIRA members and their positions and ranks.   At his third interview he was asked whether he had been involved in any way in a recent bombing in the Divis flats complex in which a soldier had been killed.   He was released from custody at 14.15 hours on 2 April 1987, within 34 hours of his arrest.   (At the time of his arrest, the fourth applicant had previous convictions for possessing explosives with intent to endanger life or property, causing an explosion likely to endanger life or property and belonging to a proscribed organisation for which he was sentenced to a term of 15 years' imprisonment.)   (5)    Application No. 13032/87 : John Murray   22.    The fifth applicant was arrested at 04.50 hours on 1 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he had been involved in a recent gun and rocket attack at New Barnsley RUC station at 12.15 hours on 31 March 1987.   Interviewing began nearly six hours later at 10.45 hours on the morning of his arrest when he was informed that he was being questioned in connection with his alleged membership of PIRA and possession of weapons on behalf of that organisation.   At that interview he was also questioned about the aforementioned gun and rocket attack at New Barnsley RUC Station.   In subsequent interviews he was further questioned about his association with known members of PIRA and was asked if he had ever been involved in PIRA operations in West Belfast.   He was also questioned about a bomb attack at the Divis flats on 30 March 1987 in which a soldier was murdered.   During the course of his interviews, the fifth applicant refused to answer any questions which were put to him either in respect of the matters for which he had been arrested or anything else.   He was released from custody at 12.45 hours on 3 April 1987 without being charged, within 56 hours of his arrest.   (6)    Application No. 13033/87 : Philip Campbell   23.    The sixth applicant was arrested at 19.35 hours on 12 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was a member of a PIRA bombing team. Interviewing began an hour and a half later at 21.00 hours when he was told that he was being questioned in connection with terrorist incidents in the Belfast area as a member of a PIRA bombing team.   He declined to answer any questions during his interviews.   He was released without charge at 20.05 hours on 13 May 1987, within 25 hours of his arrest.   (On 10 December 1980 the sixth applicant was convicted of being in possession of firearms and ammunition with intent, of possession of firearms under suspicious circumstances and of undertaking instruction in the use of firearms for which he was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment in respect of each offence to run concurrently.)   (7)    Application No. 13246/87 : Kieran Smyth   24.    The seventh applicant was arrested at 19.50 hours on 14 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the hijacking of a van on 6 April 1987 at Laganbank Road.   Interviewing did not begin until the next day, at 10.40 hours on 15 May 1987.   The reason for the delay in interviewing the seventh applicant was that a routine medical examination of the applicant could not take place until 21.20 hours on 14 May and thereafter it was not possible to assemble a team of officers to interview the seventh applicant until the following morning.   At his first interview the applicant was told that he was being questioned in connection with the aforementioned hijacking of a van.   In subsequent interviews he was questioned about his involvement in the movement of firearms in the Short Strand area and his suspected membership of PIRA.   Throughout his interviews he declined to answer any questions or to speak at all.   He was released without charge at 21.00 hours on 15 May 1987, within 26 hours of his arrest.   (At the time of his arrest, the seventh applicant had previous convictions for riotous behaviour, intimidation, public nuisance, making use of prohibited articles, malicious damage and belonging to a proscribed organisation.)   (8)    Application No. 13231/87 : Guy Breslin   25.    The eighth applicant was arrested at 12.25 hours on 15 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the hijacking and arson of an Ulster bus on 24 March 1987 at 16.30 hours at the junction of Townsend Street / Fountain Street, Strabane. Interviewing began three and a quarter hours later at 15.40 hours on the day of his arrest when he was told that he was being questioned because of his suspected involvement in the aforementioned hijacking and arson of an Ulster bus.   He was asked what he was doing on that date and whether he was acquainted with certain individuals.   He was asked if he was a member of PIRA and whether he had attended the funeral of a certain Gerald Logue at Londonderry on that date.   In subsequent interviews he was further questioned along the same lines. In none of his interviews did he answer any of the questions which were put to him or speak at all.   He was released without charge at 18.50 hours on 16 April 1987, within 31 hours of his arrest.   (9)    Application No. 13232/87 : John Connolly   26.    The ninth applicant was arrested at 07.05 hours on 15 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act.   He declined to name any person who should be informed of his arrest.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he had been involved in the same hijacking and arson incident as in the eighth applicant's case.   Interviewing began over three and a half hours later at 10.45 hours on the morning of his arrest and he was told that the reason he was being questioned was that he was suspected of being involved in the hijacking of the Ulster bus.   He was asked if he had attended the funeral of Gerald Logue in Londonderry on that date and whether this was the reason for his becoming involved in the incident in question.   In subsequent interviews he was told that he was suspected with two others of having masked and armed himself, boarded the bus and ordered the driver off before driving the bus across the road, breaking windows, pouring petrol inside it and setting fire to it.   He was also questioned about his involvement with PIRA in Strabane and his association with other persons from that organisation. Throughout the interviews the ninth applicant remained silent, refusing to answer any questions which were put to him or speak at all.   He was released without charge on 16 April 1987 at 19.45 hours, within 37 hours of his arrest.   (10)   Application No. 13233/87 : Sean McGuinness   27.    The tenth applicant was arrested at 08.35 hours on 11 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the throwing of petrol bombs at the police in a series of petrol bombing incidents in the Strabane area that year, and that he was a member of PIRA. Interviewing began over five and a half hours later at 14.15 hours on the day of his arrest.   He was told at that interview that the reason he was being questioned was his suspected involvement in the petrol bombing incidents and his involvement with PIRA.   After denying his involvement in any petrol bombing or riots, he declined to answer any further questions in that interview.   In subsequent interviews he was asked if he was a member of PIRA and whether he had ever thrown petrol bombs at the police.   During his third interview the applicant was asked whether he had been part of a crowd of youths who had thrown petrol bombs at the police in Townsend Street on 23 February 1987. The tenth applicant denied any involvement.   He was further asked whether he had been involved in throwing petrol bombs at the police in Fountain Street on 6 February 1987.   He denied any involvement, although he said he had seen them being thrown in Fountain Street. During a subsequent interview he was asked if he had ever been asked to join PIRA, but he denied that he had.   In further interviews he agreed that he had seen petrol bombs at close quarters and described them accurately.   He admitted having thrown stones at police vehicles when he was at school. He also said that he had read leaflets distributed by Sinn Fein which advised those arrested for terrorist offences not to speak to the police during interviews at Castlereagh Police Office.   He was questioned about his involvement in a riot on 23 February 1987 and a hijacking that night in Strabane when a makeshift barricade was set on fire by a number of youths.   He was questioned in detail about many specific cases of fire bombing in respect of which he was given the date and time of the incidents about which he was being questioned. He denied any involvement.   He was released without charge at 11.20 hours on 13 May 1987, within 51 hours of his arrest.   (11)   Application No. 13310/87   28.    The eleventh applicant was arrested at 07.40 hours on 28 April 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he was involved in the same hijacking incident as in the eighth applicant's case. Interviewing began over three and a quarter hours later at 11.00 hours on the morning of his arrest when he was told that he was being questioned because he was suspected of being involved in the aforementioned bus hijacking, the day of Gerald Logue's funeral, and of arson at Townsend Street, Strabane.   At subsequent interviews the applicant was asked about his membership of the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA), a proscribed organisation.   He was also questioned in further detail about the bus incident.   Apart from denying, in the fifth interview, that he was involved in the incident in question in any way, the eleventh applicant declined to answer any questions.   He was released without charge at 15.10 hours on 30 April 1987, within 56 hours of his arrest.   (12)   Application No. 13553/88   29.    The twelfth applicant was arrested at 07.20 hours on 7 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a source which indicated his involvement in causing an explosion at a primary school in Barrack Street which occurred at 12.25 hours on 6 March 1987.   The RUC had also received information from another and usually reliable source indicating that he was a member of PIRA. Interviewing began over three and a quarter hours later at 10.40 hours on the morning of his arrest at which he was informed that he was being questioned because he was suspected of being a member of PIRA in Strabane.   In addition, he was questioned about his movements on and around 5 and 6 March 1987 and about his involvement in causing the explosion at the primary school.   In subsequent interviews he was questioned about possession of a rifle with a certain J.B. in Strabane at the end of February 1987, as well as his membership of PIRA.   The twelfth applicant was asked whether he knew J.B. or had ever spoken to him.   He was also questioned about whether he supported the aims and objectives of PIRA.   Throughout his interviews, he declined to answer any questions.   He was released without charge on 8 May 1987 at 19.00 hours, within 36 hours of his arrest.   (13)   Application No. 13555/88   30.    The thirteenth applicant was arrested at 08.40 hours on 11 May 1987 under section 11 of the 1978 Act and was taken to Castlereagh Police Office.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   According to the Government, he was arrested because information was received by the RUC from a usually reliable source which indicated that he had been in a series of petrol bomb attacks in the Strabane area in the previous 12 months, and was involved with PIRA.   Interviewing began over five and a half hours later at 14.15 hours on the day of his arrest.   At that interview he was informed that he was being questioned because he was suspected of being involved in the series of petrol bombings.   In subsequent interviews he was further questioned about specific petrol bombing incidents in Strabane during February and March 1987.   He was asked why the police would receive information to the effect that he had been involved in these petrol bombings if it were not true.   He denied any involvement.   He was released without being charged at 11.20 hours on 13 May 1987, within 51 hours of his arrest.   B.     The relevant domestic law and practice   31.    Section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 conferred, inter alia, a power of arrest which is now repealed. The relevant parts of section 11 provided as follows:         "1.   Any constable may arrest without warrant any person whom he       suspects of being a terrorist ...         3.    A person arrested under this section shall not be       detained in right of the arrest for more than 72 hours       after his arrest, and Article 131 of the Magistrates'       Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and section 50(3)       of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland)       1968 (requirement to bring arrested person before a       magistrates' court not later than 48 hours after his       arrest) shall not apply to any such person."   32.    The legislative history and domestic law relating to section 11 is summarised by the Court in paragraphs 18 to 22 of its Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30 August 1990.   As the Court observed in paragraph 22 of its judgment, section 11(1) was replaced by section 6 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, which came into effect on 15 June 1987, subsequent to the facts of all the present applications.   This new provision is confined to conferring a power of entry and search of premises for the purpose of arresting persons under section 14 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.   This latter provision expressly limits powers of arrest without a warrant to cases in which there are "reasonable grounds" for suspicion.   33.    In addition, an arrest without warrant is subject to the common law rules laid down by the House of Lords in the case of Christie v. Leachinsky ((1947) Appeal cases 573).   The person being arrested must in ordinary circumstances be informed of the true ground of his arrest at the time he is taken into custody or, if special circumstances exist which excuse this, as soon thereafter as it is reasonably practicable to inform him.   This does not require technical or precise language to be used provided the person being arrested knows in substance why. However, for domestic law purposes, a person was validly arrested under section 11 (1) of the 1978 Act if he was simply informed that he was being arrested as a suspected terrorist (in re McElduff (1972) Northern Ireland Report 1 and McKee v.   Chief Constable for Northern Ireland (1985) 1 All E.R. 1-4).   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   34.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaint that their arrest and detention under section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 were in breach of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.   It has also declared admissible the complaint of the seventh applicant that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest, contrary to Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention, and the first seven applicants' complaint that they had no enforceable right to compensation under Northern Ireland law for their Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) claim, contrary to Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.   B.     Points at issue   35.    The following are accordingly the points at issue in the present applications:   -      whether the applicants' arrest and detention were in violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention;   -      whether the seventh applicant was informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest as required by Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention;   -      whether the first seven applicants had an enforceable right to compensation, as required by Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.   C.     As regards Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention   36.    The relevant part of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention provides as follows:         "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of       person.   No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in       the following cases and in accordance with a procedure       prescribed by law:         ...         (c)   the lawful arrest or detention of a person       effected for the purpose of bringing him before the       competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of       having committed an offence ..."   37.    The applicants did not dispute that their arrests and detention were "lawful" under Northern Ireland law and, thereby, in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) second sentence.   They did, however, complain that their arrests and detention under section 11 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) were otherwise in breach of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, insofar as, in particular, they did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c).   38.    The applicants' first contention was that they were not arrested for the purpose of bringing them before a competent legal authority, but merely for the purpose of interrogating them.   Their second contention concerned the absence of any standard of reasonable suspicion in the legislation which authorised their detention. Section 11 of the 1978 Act did not require the arresting officer to hold a reasonable suspicion that the applicants had committed any criminal offences.   The absence of the requirement of reasonableness was, in their submission, given the Court's judgment in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, in breach of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention (Eur.   Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 16-18 paras. 34-36).   The Government contended, inter alia, that, although the legislation did not require reasonable suspicion on arrest, in each of the present cases the arresting officers had held reasonable suspicions that the applicants had committed terrorist offences, even if the Government were unable to disclose the sources of information upon which part of those suspicions were based without jeopardising such sources.   39.    The Commission refers to the Court's judgment in the similar Fox, Campbell and Hartley case in which it noted that the test for lawful arrest under section 11 (1) of the 1978 Act was a subjective one of honest suspicion on the part of the arresting officer, whereas Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention requires an objective test of reasonable suspicion.   This presupposes the existence of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may have committed an offence. What may be regarded as reasonable will however depend on the circumstances of a particular case.   Whilst terrorist crime presents special problems and the police may arrest someone on the basis of reliable sources which must remain confidential for their protection and future efficacy, nevertheless the exigencies of dealing with terrorist crime cannot justify stretching the notion of "reasonableness" to the point where the essence of the Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) safeguard is impaired.   Although the Contracting State cannot be asked to reveal its confidential sources of information, the Commission and the Court cannot be satisfied that the requirements of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) have been fulfilled unless the Contracting State has furnished at least some specific facts or information capable of showing the Convention organs that there was reasonable suspicion against the person concerned.   40.    Two of the applicants in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, Mr.   Fox and Ms.   Campbell, were arrested on suspicion of being involved with intelligence gathering and courier work for the Provisional IRA. They had previous convictions for terrorist offences. Mr.   Hartley was suspected of involvement in a kidnapping incident. The respondent Government had asserted that, although they could not disclose the information or identify the source of the information that led to the applicants' arrest, there had existed strong grounds for suggesting that in Mr.   Fox' and Ms.   Campbell's cases, at the time of their arrest, they were engaged in terrorist information and courier activities and that, in Mr.   Hartley's case, there was available to the police material connecting him with a terrorist kidnapping (ibid p. 17 para. 33).   The Court accepted that the police held an honest suspicion concerning these applicants' involvement in terrorist offences.   It also noted the previous convictions of Mr. Fox and Ms. Campbell and that, in confirmation of the police's honest suspicion, the applicants had been questioned on specific terrorist matters.   However, in the absence of further material, the Court concluded that the Government's explanations did not meet the objective standard of reasonable suspicion laid down in Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.   In view of this finding it did not consider it necessary to go into the question of the purpose of the arrest of those applicants (Eur.   Court H.R., Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment of 30 August 1990, pp. 15-18 paras. 28-36, partially quoted in the Decision on admissibility in the present cases at Appendix II pp. 20-37 below).   41.    As regards the facts of the present cases, the Commission finds that no significant distinctions can be drawn between them and the circumstances of the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case.   In the present cases the Government, without providing any details or corroborating elements, stated that the police suspected the applicants of involvement in terrorist offences because of information received from usually reliable sources, which had to remain confidential for security purposes.   This explanation is not materially distinguishable from that provided in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case (see preceding para. 40).   Moreover the Commission emphasises that the legislation itself, section 11 of the 1978 Act, did not require the arresting officer to hold a reasonable suspicion, and that it has since been amended to include the reasonableness standard.   In these circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that the elements provided by the Government are insufficient to support the conclusion that there was "reasonable suspicion" against the present applicants in accordance with the minimum standard set by Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention.   In the light of this opinion the Commission does not consider it necessary to go into the applicants' other complaint under Article 5 para. 1 (c) (Art. 5-1-c) of the Convention concerning the purpose of their arrests.         Conclusion   42.    The Commission concludes, by 7 votes to 2, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention in the present cases.   D.     As regards Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention   43.    Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention provides as follows:         "Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a       language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest       and of any charge against him."   44.    The seventh applicant, Kieran Smyth, complained that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest, as required by Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.   The Government relied on the findings of the Court in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case: Whilst the applicant was told on arrest that he was being arrested under section 11 of the 1978 Act, thereafter, during his interview with the police, it must have become clear to him why he had been arrested and the reasons why he was suspected of being a terrorist. Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention does not necessarily require this information to be related in its entirety by the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest.   The fact that a few hours elapsed before he was interviewed could not be regarded as falling outside the constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness in Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) (ibid pp. 19-20 paras. 40-43).   45.    The Commission notes that the Court held in its Fox, Campbell and Hartley judgment that a mere reference to section 11 of the 1978 Act on arrest was insufficient information for the purposes of Article 5 para. 2 (Art. 5-2) of the Convention, but that during interrogation there was no reason to suppose that these applicants were unable to deduce from the questions put to them why they had been arrested.   On the same basis, the Commission finds that there is no ground to suppose that the seventh applicant in the present cases was unable to understand from his interviews why he had been arrested.   However, unlike the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case, the interviewing of the seventh applicant did not commence within a few hours of arrest.   His interviewing began the day after his arrest.   In the former case interviewing had begun at the latest 4 hours and 35 minutes after arrest, whereas the seventh applicant was kept over night without any substantial explanation other than the i