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. 14550/89, 14604/89, 14632/89, 14673/89, 14706/89, 14708/89, 14709/89, 14710/89, 14759/89, 14760/89, 14765/89 and 14781/89 Sean and Kathleen McELDOWNEY, Gerard BURNS, Sean McGOVERN, Michael FOX, Michael MULLIN, Kevin MULLIN, Mark MULLIN, Arthur McNALLY, Francis McKEOWN, Peter HUGHES, Patrick O'HAGAN and Raymond LARMOUR   against   the UNITED KINGDOM   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 14 October 1991)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                          page     I.     INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-19)                        1-4         A.    The applications (paras. 2-5)                1         B.    The proceedings (paras. 6-14)                1-3         C.    The present Report (paras. 15-19)            3-4   II.    ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 20-37)         5-8         A.    The particular circumstances of the cases    5-7            (paras. 20-35)         B.    The relevant domestic law and practice       7-8            (paras. 36-37)   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 38-52)          9-12         A.    Complaints declared admissible               9            (para. 38)         B.    Points at issue (para. 39)                   9         C.    As regards Article 5 para. 3                 9-11            of the Convention (paras. 40-45)              Conclusion (para. 45)                        11         D.    As regards Article 5 para. 5                 11            of the Convention            (paras. 46-50)              Conclusion (para. 50)                        11         E.    Recapitulation (paras. 51-52)                12   Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall                    13   APPENDIX I        History of the proceedings             14-16   APPENDIX II       Decision on the admissibility          17-23                  of Application No. 14550/89                  5.3.91   APPENDIX III      Decision on the admissibility          24-27                  of Application No. 14604/89                  5.3.91   APPENDIX IV       Decision on the admissibility          28-32                  of Application No. 14632/89                  5.3.91   APPENDIX V        Decision on the admissibility          33-41                  of Application Nos. 14673/89,                  14706/89, 14708/89, 14709/89,                  14710/89 and 14760/89 5.3.91   APPENDIX VI       Decision on the admissibility          42-47                  of Application Nos. 14759/89                  and 14781/89 5.3.91   APPENDIX VII      Decision on the admissibility          48-53                  of Application No. 14765/89                  5.3.91   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   2.     Sean and Kathleen McEldowney (husband and wife), Sean McGovern, Michael Fox, Michael, Kevin and Mark Mullin (three brothers), Arthur McNally, Francis McKeown, Peter Hughes, Patrick O'Hagan and Raymond Larmour are all citizens of the United Kingdom. They were born in 1956, 1960, 1958, 1955, 1959, 1956, 1965, 1953, 1958, 1955, 1952 and 1958 respectively.   They reside in Northern Ireland and were represented before the Commission by Messrs. J. Christopher Napier & Co., Solicitors, Belfast.   3.     Gerard Burns, the third applicant, is a citizen of Ireland, born in 1953 and resident in Northern Ireland.   He was represented before the Commission by Messrs.   John J. Rice & Co., Solicitors, Belfast.   4.     The applications are directed against the United Kingdom.   The respondent Government were represented before the Commission 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' arrest and detention without charge, and without being brought before a judicial authority, for periods exceeding 4 days under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984.   They raise issues under Article 5 of the Conventioon, particularly Article 5 paras. 3 and 5.   B.     The proceedings   6.     The first application was introduced by Sean and Kathleen McEldowney on 13 January 1989 and registered on 18 January 1989.   The second application was introduced by Gerard Burns on 19 January 1989 and registered on 1 February 1989.   The third application was introduced by Sean McGovern on 27 January 1989 and registered on 7 February 1989. The fourth application was introduced by Michael Fox on 31 January 1989 and registered on 20 February 1989.   The fifth, sixth and seventh applications were introduced by Michael, Kevin and Mark Mullin on 13 February 1989 and registered on 28 February 1989. The eighth application was introduced by Arthur McNally on 16 February 1989 and registered on 28 February 1989.   The ninth and tenth applications were introduced by Francis McKeown and Peter Hughes on 22 February 1989 and registered on 8 March 1989.   The eleventh application was introduced by Patrick O'Hagan on 27 February 1989 and registered on 10 March 1989. The twelfth application was introduced by Raymond Larmour on 7 March 1989 and registered on 15 March 1989.   7.     After a preliminary examination of the cases by the Rapporteur, the Commission considered the admissibility of the applications on 6 May 1989.   The Commission decided to join the applications and to request the parties' written observations on admissibility and merits, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure (former version).   8.     The Government lodged their observations on 21 September 1989 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for their submission. Messrs.   J. Christopher Napier & Co. submitted observations in reply on behalf of their clients on 18 October 1989.   Messrs.   John J. Rice Co. did not submit observations on behalf of their client, Gerard Burns, save to confirm by letter of 2 January 1990 that he maintained his application.   9.     On 6 February 1990 the Commission decided to adjourn its examination of all the applications pending the judgment of the Court in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, in view of an original complaint made by these applicants under Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention.   10.    As Gerard Burns had not made a complaint in the second application under Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention, his case was not adjourned.   The Commission informed the Government that it did not consider it necessary to hold a hearing in that case.   On 12 May 1990 the Commission again examined the state of proceedings in the second application.   It considered that Mr.   Burns' complaint raised an issue under Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention and requested the parties to submit specific written observations on this point, not dealt with in the previous observations.   The Government submitted their observations on 22 June 1990, to which Mr.   Burns' representatives replied on 11 July 1990.   11.    The Court delivered its judgment in the case of Fox, Campbell and Hartley on 30 August 1990 (Eur.   Court H.R., Series A no. 182).   On 7 September 1990 the Commission decided to invite the parties in the other 11 cases to submit any comments they might have on the significance of this judgment for the admissibility of their applications.   Messrs.   J. Christopher Napier & Co. submitted their comments on 5 October 1990.   The Government lodged their comments on 23 November 1990 after an extension of the time limit fixed for their submission.   In their various observations these applicants withdrew certain original complaints they had made under Article 5 paras. 1 (c) and 4 and Article 13 of the Convention.   As regards Article 5 para. 2, these applicants also conceded that the Court's finding in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case was made in circumstances very similar to their own.   This was subsequently interpreted by the Commission as a withdrawal of the complaint under Article 5 para. 2.   12.    On 26 February 1991 the Commission decided to refer all the cases to the Second Chamber, which on 5 March 1991 declared the first and eleventh applications partially admissible and the other 10 applications admissible.   13.    On 13 March 1991 the parties were sent the texts of the Commission's decisions (grouped according to their factual circumstances) and they were invited to submit further observations on the merits of the case should they so wish.   On 19 March 1991 Messrs. John J. Rice & Co. informed the Commission that they had no additional observations to make on behalf of Mr.   Burns.   On 10 April 1991 the Government informed the Commission that they had no additional observations to make on any of the applications.   Similarly, no additional observations were submitted by Messrs.   J. Christopher Napier & Co. on behalf of the other applicants.   14.    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' reaction, the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which such a settlement can be effected.   C.     The present Report   15.    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. SPERDUTI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. WEITZEL                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Sir    Basil HALL            Mr.    F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            Mr.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ   16.    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.   17.    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.   18.    A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as APPENDIX I and the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the applications as APPENDICES II - VII.   19.    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   20.    All the applicants were arrested and detained without charge for periods exceeding 4 days under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (the 1984 Act).   21.    The first applicant, Sean McEldowney, was arrested at 21.55 hrs. on 24 August 1988.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   He was also informed that there had been an attempt to murder two members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC) earlier that day and that a convicted terrorist had been found in the roof-space of his home which had been searched in his absence.   He was detained for questioning about these matters until 18.15 hrs. on 31 August 1988, when he was released without being charged with any offence.   He was thus detained for 6 days, 20 hours and 20 minutes.   22.    The second applicant, Kathleen McEldowney, was arrested at 14.50 hrs. on 24 August 1988 for the same reasons and the same purpose as her husband, the first applicant.   She was informed of this.   She was particularly suspected of being involved in the attempted murder of the two RUC police officers because witnesses had described a woman resembling her amongst a group of people who had stolen a van used in the attempt.   She was released at 13.00 hrs. on 31 August 1988 without being charged with an offence.   She was thus detained for 6 days, 22 hours and 10 minutes.   23.    The third applicant, Gerard Burns, was arrested at 11.10 hrs. on 7 September 1988 as he was running away from a car similar to that used by a gunman who a few minutes earlier had murdered someone in the street.   He is suspected of being a member of the Irish People's Liberation Organisation, a terrorist organisation, and he has convictions for terrorist offences.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism and he was also informed that he was suspected of having been involved in the murder.   He was detained for questioning about these matters until 18.15 hrs. on 11 September 1988, when he was released without charge.   He was thus detained for 4 days, 7 hours and 5 minutes.   24.    The fourth applicant, Sean McGovern, was arrested at 07.00 hrs. on 27 October 1988 during a search of his house.   He was informed that he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism and, in particular, was suspected of being involved in the murder of a police constable the day before, because a vehicle owned by the applicant, who is known to associate with members of the Provisional IRA, a proscribed terrorist organisation, was seen in the immediate vicinity at the time of the murder.   He was detained for questioning about these matters and released without charge at 16.15 hrs. on 2 November 1988.   He was thus detained for 6 days, 9 hours and 15 minutes.   25.    The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and eleventh applicants were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the same terrorist incident in which unmarked civilian buses carrying soldiers were ambushed by an explosive device in a road on 20 August 1988, resulting in the death of eight soldiers and the injury of 27 others, some seriously.   On their arrest these applicants were all informed that they were arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act on suspicion of being involved in terrorism.   They were all questioned about the bomb attack during their detention and their suspected membership of the Provisional IRA.   26.    The fifth applicant, Michael Fox, was arrested at 04.03 hrs. on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on 28 August 1988.   He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 37 minutes.   27.    The sixth applicant, Michael Mullin, was arrested at 04.05 hrs. on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.30 hrs. on 28 August 1988.   He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 25 minutes.   28.    The seventh applicant, Kevin Mullin, was arrested at 04.02 hrs. on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.30 hrs. on 28 August 1988.   He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 28 minutes.   29.    The eighth applicant, Mark Mullin, was arrested at 04.07 hrs. on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.35 hrs. on 28 August 1988.   He was thus also detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 28 minutes.   30.    The ninth applicant, Arthur McNally, who had convictions in 1976 for explosives and firearms offences, was arrested at 04.10 hrs. on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on 28 August 1988.   He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 30 minutes.   31.    The eleventh applicant, Peter Hughes, was arrested at 04.14 hrs. on 24 August 1988 and released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on 28 August 1988.   He was thus detained for 4 days, 14 hours and 26 minutes.   32.    The tenth and thirteenth applicants were arrested on suspicion of being involved in the same terrorist incident in which explosives concealed in a van caused damage to a police station and neighbouring houses, injuring a number of police officers and civilians, on 8 September 1988.   On their arrest they were both informed that they were arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act on suspicion of being involved in terrorism.   They were questioned about the attack on the police station during their detention. 33.      The tenth applicant, Francis McKeown, a suspected member of the Provisional IRA, was arrested at 13.35 hrs. on 9 September 1988 and released without charge at 13.00 hrs. on 15 September 1988.   He was thus detained 5 days, 23 hours and 25 minutes.   He was arrested a month later under the same legal provision at 08.30 hrs. on 13 October 1988 for questioning about a bunker found under the floor of his garage which police suspected was being used for terrorist purposes. He was released without charge at 18.40 hrs. on 17 October 1988. This second period of detention thus lasted 4 days, 10 hours and 10 minutes.   34.    The thirteenth applicant, Raymond Larmour, was arrested at 21.48 hrs. on 8 September 1988 and released without charge at 17.30 hrs. on 14 September 1988.   He was thus detained for 5 days, 19 hours and 42 minutes.   35.    The twelfth applicant, Patrick O'Hagan, a suspected member of the Provisional IRA with convictions for firearms and explosives offences, was arrested at 06.14 hrs. on 29 September 1988.   At the time of his arrest he was told that he was being arrested under section 12 of the 1984 Act as he was suspected of being involved in terrorism.   During his detention he was told that the police were inquiring into terrorist activity and involvement in his vicinity and he was questioned about his association with certain known Provisional IRA terrorists, a murder in 1986, his suspected membership of the Provisional IRA and the suspected hidden storage of munitions on his property (a search of the property having revealed nothing).   He was released without charge at 12.55 hrs. on 3 October 1988.   He was thus detained for 4 days, 6 hours and 41 minutes.   B.     The relevant domestic law and practice   36.    The applicants were detained pursuant to section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 which provides as follows:         "(1) A constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he            reasonably suspects to be -              (a)   a person guilty of an offence under sections 1, 9, 10            or 11 of this Act;              (b)   a person who is or has been concerned in the            commission, preparation or instigation of acts of            terrorism;              (c)   a person subject to an exclusion order.         ...         (3)   The acts of terrorism to which this Part of the Act applies            are: -              (a)   acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of            Northern Ireland; and              (b)   acts of terrorism of any other description except            acts connected solely with the affairs of the United            Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom other than            Northern Ireland.         (4)   A person arrested under this section shall not be       detained in right of the arrest for more than forty-eight hours       after his arrest, but the Secretary of State may, in any       particular case, extend the period of forty-eight hours by a       further period or periods specified by him.         (5)   Any such further period or periods shall not exceed            five days in all.         (6)   The following provisions (requirement to bring an       accused person before the court after his arrest) shall not       apply to a person detained in right of the arrest -              ...              (d)   Article 131 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern            Ireland) Order 1981; ..."   37.    The history of this legislation is set out at paragraphs 25 to 28 in the case of Brogan and Others (Eur.   Court H.R., Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145B).   As from 22 March 1989, the 1984 Act was replaced by the corresponding provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.   III.   OPINION OF THE COMMISSION   A.     Complaints declared admissible   38.    The Commission has declared admissible the applicants' complaint that their arrest and detention under Section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 were in breach of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   The Commission also declared admissible the complaint of all the applicants, except Gerard Burns, the third applicant, who did not raise the point, that they had no enforceable right to compensation pursuant to Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.   B.     Points at issue   39.    The following are the points at issue in the present cases:         -   whether the applicants were brought promptly before a judge       or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power,       as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention;         -   whether twelve of the 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. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention   40.    Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention provides as follows:   "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial."   41.    The applicants have complained that they were not brought "promptly" before a judge after their arrest, contrary to Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   They were held for periods ranging from 4 days, 6 hours and 41 minutes (Patrick O'Hagan, the twelfth applicant) to 6 days, 22 hours and 10 minutes (Kathleen McEldowney, the second applicant) before being released.   At no time during their detention were they brought before a judge.   They rely on the judgment of the Court in the case of Brogan and Others in which it was held that periods of detention varying from 4 days, 6 hours to 6 days, 16 hours and 30 minutes under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, without the individuals concerned being brought before a judicial authority, was in violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention (Eur.   Court H.R., Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145B, paras. 55-62).   42.    The Government have contended that the precise basis of the applicants' complaint is unclear and that it is accordingly unfounded.   43.    The Commission notes that at paragraphs 61 and 62 of the aforementioned Brogan and Others judgment the Court held as follows:   "61.   The investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presents the authorities with special problems.   ...   The Court accepts that, subject to the existence of adequate safeguards, the context of terrorism in Northern Ireland has the effect of prolonging the period during which the authorities may, without violating Article 5 para. 3, (Art. 5-3) keep a person suspected of serious terrorist offences in custody before bringing him before a judge or other judicial officer.         The difficulties, alluded to by the Govenment, of judicial control over decisions to arrest and detain suspected terrorists may affect the manner of implementation of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3), for example in calling for appropriate procedural precautions in view of the nature of the suspected offences.   However, they cannot justify, under Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3), dispensing altogether with 'prompt' judicial control.   62.    ... the scope for flexibility in interpreting and applying the notion of 'promptness' is very limited.   In the Court's view, even the shortest of the four periods of detention, namely the four days and six hours spent in police custody by (one of the applicants) falls outside the strict constraints as to time permitted by the first part of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3).   To attach such importance to the special features of this case as to justify so lengthy a period of detention without appearance before a judge or other judicial officer would be an unacceptably wide interpretation of the plain meaning of the word 'promptly'. An interpretation to this effect would import into Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3) a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and would entail consequences impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision. The Court thus has to conclude that none of the applicants was either brought 'promptly' before a judicial authority or released 'promptly' following his arrest.   The undoubted fact that the arrest and detention of the applicants were inspired by the legitimate aim of protecting the community as a whole from terrorism is not on its own sufficient to ensure compliance with the specific requirements of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3).         There has thus been a breach of Article 5 § 3 (Art. 5-3) in respect of all four applicants."   44.    In view of the fact that the applicants in the present cases were detained for longer periods than that of four days and six hours mentioned in the above extract from the Brogan and Others judgment, the Commission is of the opinion that the applicants were not brought "promptly" before a judge, as required by Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.         Conclusion   45.    The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   D.     As regards Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention   46.    Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention provides as follows:         "Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or       detention in contravention of the provisions of       this Article shall have an enforceable right       to compensation."   47.    Twelve of the applicants complained that they have no enforceable right to compensation in domestic law for the breach of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention which they suffered.   No such complaint was made by Gerard Burns (No. 14604/89).   The twelve applicants again relied on the judgment of the Court in the case of Brogan and Others in which a breach of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) was found as those applicants had not had a right to compensation in respect of the violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention (ibid. paras. 66-67).   48.    The Government contended that as the facts of the cases of the twelve applicants in question disclosed no breach of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention, no issue could arise under Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention.   49.    The twelve applicants were arrested and detained lawfully under domestic law but, as the Commission has concluded above, in breach of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.   This violation could not give rise, either before or after such a finding by the Convention organs, to an enforceable claim for compensation by the applicants before the courts in the United Kingdom.   The twelve applicants do not, therefore, have any enforceable right to compensation under Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.         Conclusion   50.    The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the cases of twelve applicants.   E.     Recapitulation   51.    The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention (para. 45).   52.    The Commission concludes, by 9 votes to 1, that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 5 (Art. 5-5) of the Convention in the cases of twelve applicants (para. 50).   Secretary to the Second Chamber    President of the Second Chamber           (K. ROGGE)                     (S. TRECHSEL)   Dissenting opinion of Sir Basil Hall         I agree that if the judgment of the Court in the Brogan and Others case is followed the applicants in the present cases were not "brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power ..." and that in consequence there would be a violation of Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.   I remain however of the opinion, which I expressed in that case, that in the circumstances at present obtaining in Northern Ireland the needs of the community justify a more flexible interpretation of the expression "promptly" in Article 5 para. 3 in cases of suspected terrorism than would be permissible in other cases.         I do not need to elaborate on this theme.   I need only refer to the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Thór Vilhjálmsson, Bindschleder-Robert, Gölcüklü, Matscher and Valticos and to the dissenting opinions of Judge Sir Vincent Evans and Judge Martens in the Brogan and Others case.         I nonetheless wish to stress the extreme importance of the safeguards given by Article 5 para. 3.   The experience of the Commission has shown that the protection of individuals who are arrested on suspicion of having committed offences requires that the provision shall in normal circumstances be restrictively interpreted. The situation in Northern Ireland described in the opinions I have referred to above, and in the Commission's report in that case, is however such that, exceptionally, for the protection of the basic human rights of members of the Northern Irish community, a less restrictive interpretation of Article 5 para. 3 is required.         I am therefore of the opinion that there has been no violation of Article 5 para. 3 in these cases.   It follows that I do not consider that there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 5.   Appendix I   HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS        Date                      Item ________________________________________________________________   Introduction   13.01.89               Application No. 14550/89   19.01.89               Application No. 14604/89   27.01.89               Application No. 14633/89   31.01.89               Application No. 14673/89   13.02.89               Application Nos. 14706/89,                       14708/89 and 14709/89   16.02.89               Application No. 14710/89   22.02.89               Application Nos. 14759/89                       and 14760/89   27.02.89               Application No. 14765/89   07.03.89               Application No. 14781/89   Registration   18.01.89               Application No. 14550/89   01.02.89               Application No. 14604/89   07.02.89               Application No. 14633/89   20.02.89               Application No. 14673/89   28.02.89               Application Nos. 14706/89,                       14708/89, 14709/89 and 14710/89   08.03.89               Application Nos. 14759/89                       and 14760/89   10.03.89               Application No. 14765/89   15.03.89               Application No. 14781/89   Examination of admissibility   06.05.89               Commission's decision to join the                       applications and to invite the                       parties to submit their written                       observations on admissibility and                       merits   21.09.89               Government's observations   18.10.89               Observations of Messrs.   J. Christopher                       Napier & Co. on behalf of 12 applicants   02.01.90               Information from Messrs.   John J. Rice                       & Co. on behalf of the third applicant                       (Application No. 14604/89)   06.01.90               Adjournment of 11 applications   12.05.90               Commission's decision to invite the                       parties to submit observations on the                       admissibility and merits of an aspect                       of the second Application No. 14604/89   22.06.90               Government's observations in                       Application No. 14604/89   11.07.90               Observations from Messrs.   John J. Rice                       & Co. in Application No. 14604/89   07.09.90               Commission's decision to invite the                       parties' comments in 11 applications                       on the relevance of the Fox, Campbell                       and Hartley judgment to their cases   05.10.90               Comments from Messrs.   J. Christopher                       Napier & Co. in the 11 applications   23.11.90               Government's comments in the 11                       applications   26.02.91               Commission's decision to refer cases                       to the Second Chamber   05.03.91               Decision of the Commission (Second                       Chamber) to declare the first and                       eleventh applications partially                       admissible (Nos. 14550/89 and                       14765/89) and to declare the other                       10 applications admissible   Examination of the merits   13.03.91               Parties invited to submit such final                       observations on the merits as they                       wished   19.03.91               Information from Messrs.   John J. Rice                       & Co. in the second Application                       No. 14604/89   10.04.91               Information from the Government   10.09.91               Commission's consideration of                       state of proceedings   14.10.91               Commission's deliberations on the                       merits and final votes                       Adoption of the present Report