CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 20 mars 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sE558B5C3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2B06F383 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sCBC1734A { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s436152 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s157F70F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B910EEF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s503E154C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:57.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7A1222CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:57.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; font-size:10pt } .sCA234740 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:57.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC2BF3AD2 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:45.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-11.35pt; font-size:10pt } .sB69BB285 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s424391EA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.75pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBA8008B0 { width:11.84pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s94C87C68 { width:26.16pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA5A75BCF { width:25.51pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1B50D646 { width:185.6pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s8E4EE0F1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s66E9FC38 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sFA0E4E80 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D2FC27E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:54pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s5F086C28 { width:14pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3A891538 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:41.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sD66075BF { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt }       THIRD SECTION             CASE OF IRELAND v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Application no. 5310/71)                 JUDGMENT ( Revision )     STRASBOURG   20   March   2018     FINAL   10/09/2018   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Ireland v. the United Kingdom (request for revision of the judgment of 18 January 1978), The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Helena Jäderblom, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Luis López Guerra,   Helen Keller,   Dmitry Dedov,   Síofra O’Leary, judges,   Robert Reed, ad hoc judge, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 6 February 2018, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 5310/71) lodged on 16   December   1971 with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the   Commission”) by the Government of Ireland (“the applicant Government”) against the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“the respondent Government”) under former Article 24 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The Commission adopted its report on 25   January   1976. The case was referred to the Court by the applicant Government. 2.     In a judgment delivered on 18 January 1978 (“the original judgment”), the Court held, in so far as relevant in the context of the present revision request, that the use of the five techniques of interrogation in August and October 1971 constituted a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and that the said use of the five techniques did not constitute a practice of torture within the meaning of Article 3 (see paragraphs 165-69 and points 3 and 4 of the operative part of the original judgment). 3.     On 4 December 2014 the applicant Government informed the Court that no earlier than 4 June 2014 documents had come to their knowledge which by their nature might have had a decisive influence on the Court’s judgment in respect of Article 3 of the Convention had they been known to the Court at the time of delivering judgment. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court. 4.     The applicant Government were represented by their Agent, Mr   P.   White, of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr P. McKell, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 5.     Pursuant to Rule 109 §§ 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court, which deals with requests for revision of a judgment given before the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the President of the Court assigned the case to the First Section and, following a change in the composition of the Court, to the Third Section. The Chamber constituted within that Section in accordance with Rule 109 § 3 included ex officio Judges Síofra O’Leary, the judge elected in respect of Ireland, Paul Mahoney, the judge elected in respect of the United Kingdom (Article 27 § 2 of the Convention and Rule   109 § 3 (b)) and Luis López Guerra, the President of the Section, (Rule   109 § 3 (a)). The other members designated by the President of the Section by means of a drawing of lots from among the members of the Section were Judges Helena Jäderblom, Dmitry Dedov, Helen Keller and Johannes Silvis. Subsequently, Judge Mahoney withdrew from sitting in the Chamber (Rule   28). The President accordingly designated Lord Reed to sit as an ad hoc judge (Rule 29 in conjunction with Rule 109 § 3 (b)). Judge   Silvis, whose term of office had ended on 31 August 2016, was replaced by Judge Branko Lubarda, substitute judge. On 1 February 2017 Judge   Jäderblom succeeded Judge López Guerra as President of the Section. 6.     On 22 March 2016 the Chamber considered the request for revision and decided to communicate it to the respondent Government for observations. Those observations were received on 15 December 2016. The observations in reply by the applicant Government were received on 20   February   2017. Upon the respondent Government’s request, the President authorised a second round of observations. Those of the respondent Government were received on 13 April 2017 and those in reply by the applicant Government on 8 May 2017. 7.     On 18 January 2018 the President of the Court, on the basis of the order of the President of the European Commission of Human Rights of 29   October 1999, decided to lift the confidentiality restrictions in respect of the transcripts of the proceedings before the Commission, as redacted by the two Governments, to which direct reference is made by the parties in their submissions in the present revision proceedings. A schedule of the redacted documents was attached to that decision. THE REQUEST FOR REVISION 8.     The applicant Government requested revision of the Court’s judgment of 18 January 1978 to the effect that the use of the five techniques of interrogation in depth amounted to a practice not merely of inhuman and degrading treatment but of torture within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. I.     THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION A.     The hearings before the Commission 9.     In the original proceedings the Commission took evidence inter alia by hearing witnesses. A brief summary of the hearing of witnesses, as far as relevant in the present case, is given below. 10.     In relation to the five techniques, the Commission’s delegates heard evidence, at hearings held between 26 and 29 November 1973, from two of the men subjected to the five techniques, Mr P.C. and Mr P.S. (referred to as T   13 and T 6 in the Commission’s report). They described the physical and mental effects which the use of the five techniques had had on them when they were applied and the mental disturbances from which they had suffered thereafter. The Commission’s delegates also heard Dr M., a consultant psychiatrist and neurologist (referred to as Dr 1 in its report), who had examined both men shortly after the five techniques had been applied to them in August 1971 and had examined P.S. a second time in August 1972. He had been called as an expert by the Commission. He had found that P.C. had recovered but had observed active psychiatric symptoms in P.S. which still persisted when he examined him a second time. He found it difficult to make any long-term prognosis. Two further psychiatric experts were called by the applicant Government, Professors Daly and Bastiaans. The former, who had also seen both men, disagreed with Dr M. He found that both men still suffered from psychiatric after-effects and that P.S. in particular would continue to be affected. Professor Bastiaans considered that serious, long ‑ term effects were to be expected in both cases. 11.     Dr L. (referred to as Dr 5 in the Commission’s report), a psychiatric expert called by the respondent Government, was heard initially at the hearings of 15 June 1974. He was questioned at length about the physical and mental effects and possible after-effects the use of the five techniques had had on the two men. He had examined both of them in February/March and again in December 1973, as an expert for the respondent Government in the context of civil proceedings for damages that were pending at that time before the courts in Northern Ireland. He found that they had suffered acute psychiatric symptoms in the period in which they had been subjected to the five techniques. Any after-effects were diminishing and not severe and were partly due to living conditions in Northern Ireland. 12 .     Dr L. was heard a second time on 18 January 1975. On that date he was questioned extensively about his professional background and experience. He then gave evidence about the general effects produced by the use of the five techniques in the persons subjected to them. He disagreed with the views expressed by Professors Daly and Bastiaans and gave as his own view that the use of the five techniques would not cause lasting damage. In addition, questions were put to him in respect of the amounts received by the victims of the five techniques by way of settlement in the above-mentioned domestic proceedings, and in particular whether those high amounts were indicative of the seriousness of the effects of the five techniques and thus inconsistent with the views expressed by him. He considered that had the effects been as described by Professors Daly and Bastiaans the amounts would have been much higher. B.     The report of the Commission 13 .     The report of the Commission of 25 January 1976 contains the following text relating to the establishment of the facts and its opinion regarding the use of the five techniques (see pp. 395-402): “3.     ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS The cases of T.13 and T.6. General remarks The applicant Government have submitted the cases of eight persons in which the use of the five techniques and sometimes also other forms of ill-treatment were alleged. The Commission has examined the illustrative cases of T.13 and T.6. The allegations in regard to T.6 concern both the five techniques and other forms of alleged ill-treatment, whereas the allegations in regard to T.13 concern the five techniques only. Both cases were among the eleven cases investigated by the Compton Committee. However, neither T.13 nor T.6 had given evidence before that Committee, which based its findings on the oral evidence of the persons who supervised the operations at the centre and of the medical officer who was stationed there, as well as on various medical records, colour photographs and the feeding record (cf. Compton Report, paras.   54 and 55, at p. 14). The Delegates of the Commission heard both case witnesses who gave their evidence in detail and were also cross-examined by the respondent Government. They had before them extracts from the medical officer’s journal at Crumlin Road Prison, the medical examination records on arrival and on departure from the interrogation centre and colour photographs of T.6 as well as various reports by psychiatrists who also gave oral evidence. However, the Delegates were not able to hear oral evidence from members of the security forces in relation to the allegations concerning the interrogation centre. In the first place no witnesses who had been present at that centre were made available. Secondly, the respondent Government stated at the hearing of witnesses at Sola in January 1975 that all of their witnesses had now been instructed not to reply to any questions regarding the five techniques and their use on the ground that the use of these techniques had been discontinued and that there were security considerations involved. This ‘embargo’ on the evidence also related to matters connected with a ‘seminar’ held in Northern Ireland in April 1971 by the English Intelligence Centre for members of the RUC [Royal Ulster Constabulary], where the use of the techniques was taught orally (cf. Parker Report, Minority Report, para. 6 at p. 12; also Witness   13G   at VR 6, pp. 190 et seq.). The Commission does not consider it necessary to pursue this matter any further. It is satisfied that the five methods in aid of interrogation which, as a matter of public record, were used in emergency situations at various other places before they were used in Northern Ireland in 1971 (see Parker Report, Majority Report, para. 10 at p. 3 [..]) were applied to the two case witnesses in the present case. It is further satisfied that a ‘seminar’ as described was held in April 1971 by the English Intelligence Centre. Course of events The evidence before the Commission bears out the allegations made by the case witnesses and confirms the findings of the Compton Committee as regards the course of the events for the persons subjected to the five techniques. T.13 and T.6 were, together with others, arrested in the early morning hours of 9   August 1971 and brought to Magilligan Camp, being one of the three Regional Holding Centres set up to receive arrested persons. They were held there for two days and, having been selected for special interrogation were brought, on 11 August 1971, to the unknown interrogation centre. On arrival at the centre they were medically examined and at one stage they were taken by helicopter to another place where they were served with a detention order. They were taken back to the centre where they were interrogated in depth being subjected to the five techniques in the following way: a.     Wall-standing – the witnesses demonstrated how they were spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers (the stress position). They were forced to remain in this position. The exact length of time during which the witnesses were required to stand could not be established. Both witnesses said that they lost their sense of time but that it must have been many hours. The Compton Committee while describing the position as being a different one, found that T.13 had been against the wall during periods totalling 23 hours, and T.6 29 hours. b.     Hooding – a black or navy coloured bag was put over the witnesses’ heads. Initially it was kept there all the time, except during interrogations, but later T.13 was allowed to take it off when he was alone in the room, provided that he turned his face to the wall. c.     Noise – pending interrogations the witnesses were held in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise. d.     Sleep – pending interrogations the witnesses were deprived of sleep, but it was not possible to establish for what periods each witness had been without sleep. e.     Food and drink – the witnesses were subjected to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations. It was not possible to establish to what extent they were deprived of nourishment and whether or not they were offered food and drink but refused to take it. The witnesses were at the centre from 11 to 17 August 1971, when they were transferred to Crumlin Road Prison in accordance with the detention order. In 1971 T.13 and T.6 instituted domestic proceedings to recover damages for wrongful imprisonment and for assault and their claims were settled in 1973 and 1975 respectively for £ 15,000 and £ 14,000. Physical and mental effects resulting from the use of the techniques (i)     Physical effects The Commission is satisfied from the evidence given that the witnesses suffered loss of weight resulting from their detention at the unknown interrogation centre and from the use of the five techniques. It is furthermore established that, particularly the wall ‑ standing technique, caused physical pain while it was being applied, but that the pain ceased when the person was no longer in that position. (ii)     Mental effects The witnesses themselves described feelings of anxiety and fear, as well as disorientation and isolation during the time they were subjected to the techniques and afterwards. However, the intensity of such sensations was different in respect of T.13 than in respect of T.6, as a result of differences in their personality. Consequently, T.13 had been more strongly affected by the application of the techniques than T.6. On the other hand, the psychiatrists disagreed considerably on the after-effects of the treatment and on the prognosis for recovery. Professors Daly and Bastiaans considered that both witnesses would continue for a long time to have considerable disability shown by bouts of depression, insomnia and a generally neurotic condition resembling that found in victims of Nazi persecution. Drs. 5 and 1 considered that the acute psychiatric symptoms developed by the witnesses during the interrogation had been minor and that their persistence was the result of everyday life in Northern Ireland for an ex-detainee carrying out his work travelling to different localities. In no sense could the witnesses’ experiences be compared with those of the victims of Nazi persecution. On the basis of this evidence the Commission is unable to establish the exact degree of the psychiatric after-effects which the use of the five techniques might have had on these witnesses or generally on persons subjected to them. It is satisfied, however, that, depending on the personality of the person concerned, the circumstances in which he finds himself, and the conditions of everyday life in Northern Ireland at the relevant time, some after-effects resulting from the application of the techniques cannot be excluded. Findings of the Commission The five techniques in aid of interrogation were used in August 1971 on T.13 and T.6. They were applied prior to, between and during interrogations, but not after interrogation was terminated. This means that the persons concerned were subject to the techniques during at least four, possibly five, days. The exact times could not be established. The Commission is satisfied the total periods during which the two witnesses were at the wall, [were] 23 and 29 hours respectively. A certain degree of force was used to make the detainees stand at the wall in the required posture which caused physical pain and exhaustion. The posture required was a stress position and not a normal position required to search a person, although it cannot be considered to be proved that the enforced stress position lasted all the time they were at the wall. No physical injury resulted from the application of the techniques as such, but it caused mentally a number of acute psychiatric symptoms. It cannot be excluded that in certain persons some of these symptoms continue to exist for some time afterwards. The damages granted to them under settlements in court are substantial sums and, although it is not possible in any settlement to say what part was paid with a view to what claim, it may be presumed that the greater part of the sum was awarded in view of the allegations of ill-treatment including the application of the five techniques, having regard to sums normally awarded by courts for claims of assault as compared with sums normally granted for claims of wrongful imprisonment. 4.     OPINION OF THE COMMISSION In the present case the Commission is called upon to express an opinion as to whether or not the combined application of the five techniques in the cases of T.13 and T.6, and in the other cases referred to in the Compton Report, constituted a practice in breach of Art. 3 of the Convention. As has already been stated, the question of practice is not in dispute as the use of the five techniques was admittedly authorised by the respondent Government and the existence of a practice has therefore been found to be established by the Commission in its decision on the admissibility of the case. On the other hand, the question of whether or not the use of the five techniques taken together constituted a violation of Art. 3 of the Convention is still in issue between the parties. The Commission has therefore examined the question whether or not, in the light of the considerations on the interpretation of that provision above (pp. 376-379), the five techniques were consistent with Art. 3 of the Convention. In doing so, it has also taken into account certain statements and legal texts which seem to throw some light on the kind of treatment against which Art. 3 of the Convention should protect, and are relevant to the particular facts established in this part of the present case. In this connection, it first had regard to the preparatory works of the Convention, and, in particular, to a proposal by Mr. Cocks (United Kingdom) at the Plenary Sitting of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on 9 September 1949 to amend the draft Recommendation for the Convention on Human Rights. Mr. Cocks proposed to add to Art. 2 (1) of the Recommendation in the context of the protection of security of persons, the following text: ‘In particular no person shall be subjected to any form of mutilation or sterilisation or to any form of torture or beating. Nor shall he be forced to take drugs nor shall they be administered to him without his knowledge and consent. Nor shall he be subjected to imprisonment with such an excess of light, darkness, noise, or silence as to cause mental suffering’ (Collected Edition of the ‘Travaux Préparatoires’, Vol. I, p. 116/117).’ This proposal was later withdrawn because it was felt that the point which Mr Cocks wished to make was already in substance covered by the general terms of Art.   5 of the UN Declaration which corresponds to Art.   3 of the Convention. Nevertheless, there was agreement in the Assembly that the substance of what Mr. Cocks had emphasised in his amendment was to be read into the Convention (see Debate in ‘Collected Edition’, Vol.   I, pp.   153-154). The Commission has further had regard to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to which reference has also been made by Lord Gardiner in the Parker Report. It is, of course, clear that the main provisions of these Conventions are not directly applicable to the detainees in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, they include provisions concerning investigation procedures and may also be relevant in the sense that they constitute an expression of the general principles of international law in regard to them and to the treatment of prisoners in general. Thus Art. 13 of the Third Geneva Convention concerning prisoners of war prohibits all acts causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner. Acts of intimidation and insults are specifically mentioned. As regards interrogation procedures, Art. 17, para. 4 states: ‘No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.’ The Fourth Geneva Convention concerning the protection of civilians provides in Art.   89 that internees shall receive sufficient food to keep them in a good state of health. Art. 118, para. 2, states; ‘Imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, all forms of cruelty without exception are forbidden’. Under Art. 119, para. 2, disciplinary measures may not be ‘inhuman, brutal, or dangerous for the health of internees’. Concerning the five techniques in the present case, the Commission considers that it should express an opinion only as to whether or not the way in which they were applied here, namely in combination with each other, was in breach of Art. 3. It observes that, if they were considered separately, deprivation of sleep or restrictions on diet might not as such be regarded as constituting treatment prohibited by Art. 3. It would rather depend on the circumstances and the purpose and would largely be a question of degree. In the present case, the five techniques applied together were designed to put severe mental and physical stress, causing severe suffering, on a person in order to obtain information from him. It is true that all methods of interrogation which go beyond the mere asking of questions may bring some pressure on the person concerned, but they cannot, by that very fact, be called inhuman. The five techniques are to be distinguished from those methods. Compared with the inhuman treatment discussed earlier (pp. 376 seq.), the stress caused by the application of the five techniques is not only different in degree. The combined application of methods which prevent the use of the senses, especially the eyes and the ears, directly affects the personality physically and mentally. The will to resist or to give in cannot, under such conditions, be formed with any degree of independence. Those most firmly resistant might give in at an early stage when subjected to this sophisticated method to break or even eliminate the will. It is this character of the combined use of the five techniques which, in the opinion of the Commission, renders them in breach of Art. 3 of the Convention in the form not only of inhuman and degrading treatment, but also of torture within the meaning of that provision. Indeed, the systematic application of the techniques for the purpose of inducing a person to give information shows a clear resemblance to those methods of systematic torture which have been know over the ages. Although the five techniques – also called ‘disorientation’ or ‘sensory deprivation’ techniques – might not necessarily cause any severe after-effects the Commission sees in them a modern system of torture falling into the same category as those systems which have been applied in previous times as a means of obtaining information and confessions. CONCLUSION The Commission is of the opinion, by a unanimous vote, that the combined use of the five techniques in the cases before it constituted a practice of inhuman treatment and torture in breach of Art. 3 of the Convention.” II.     THE COURT’S JUDGMENT OF 18 JANUARY 1978 14.     Regarding the establishment of the facts in respect of allegations of ill-treatment the Court stated as follows: “III.     ALLEGATIONS OF ILL-TREATMENT A.     Introduction 92.     As recounted above at paragraphs 39 and 41, on 9 August 1971 and thereafter numerous persons in Northern Ireland were arrested and taken into custody by the security forces acting in pursuance of the emergency powers. The persons arrested were interrogated, usually by members of the RUC, in order to determine whether they should be interned and/or to compile information about the IRA. In all, about 3,276 persons were processed by the police at various holding centres from August 1971 until June 1972. The holding centres were replaced in July 1972 by police offices in Belfast and at Ballykelly Military Barracks. 93.     Allegations of ill-treatment have been made by the applicant Government in relation both to the initial arrests and to the subsequent interrogations. The applicant Government submitted written evidence to the Commission in respect of 228 cases concerning incidents between 9 August 1971 and 1974. The procedure followed for the purposes of ascertaining the facts (Article 28, sub ‑ paragraph (a), of the Convention) was one decided upon by the Commission and accepted by the Parties. The Commission examined in detail with medical reports and oral evidence 16 ‘illustrative’ cases selected at its request by the applicant Government. The Commission considered a further 41 cases (the so-called ‘41 cases’) on which it had received medical reports and invited written comments; it referred to the remaining cases. The nature of the evidence submitted by the two Governments and the procedure followed by the Commission in its investigation of such evidence are set out in some detail in the Commission’s report. The Commission came to view that neither the witnesses from the security forces nor the case-witnesses put forward by the applicant Government had given accurate and complete accounts of what had happened. Consequently, where the allegations of ill-treatment were in dispute, the Commission treated as ‘the most important objective evidence’ the medical findings which were not contested as such. The following account of events is based on the information set out in the Commission’s report and in the other documents before the Court. 94.     In order to protect the identity of certain persons, notably witnesses, the published version of the Commission’s report (see paragraph 7 above) incorporated changes to the original text; these changes mainly took the form of designating such persons by letters and/or figures. 95.     The Commission grouped the cases into five categories, according to the place where the ill-treatment was said to have been inflicted, namely: (1)     the unidentified interrogation centre or centres; (2)     Palace Barracks, Holywood; (3)     Girdwood Park Barracks; (4)     Ballykinler Regional Holding Centre; and (5)     various other miscellaneous places. B.     The unidentified interrogation centre or centres 96.     Twelve persons arrested on 9 August 1971 and two persons arrested in October   1971 were singled out and taken to one or more unidentified centres. There, between 11 to 17 August and 11 to 18 October respectively, they were submitted to a form of ‘interrogation in depth’ which involved the combined application of five particular techniques. These methods, sometimes termed ‘disorientation’ or ‘sensory deprivation’ techniques, were not used in any cases other than the fourteen so indicated above. It emerges from the Commission’s establishment of the facts that the techniques consisted of: (a)     wall-standing: forcing the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a ‘stress position’, described by those who underwent it as being ‘spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers’; (b)     hooding: putting a black or navy coloured bag over the detainees’ heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the time except during interrogation; (c)     subjection to noise: pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise; (d)     deprivation of sleep: pending their interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep; (e)     deprivation of food and drink: subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations. The Commission’s findings as to the manner and effects of the application of these techniques on two particular case-witnesses are referred to below at paragraph 104. 97.     From the start, it has been conceded by the respondent Government that the use of the five techniques was authorised at ‘high level’. Although never committed to writing or authorised in any official document, the techniques had been orally taught to members of the RUC by the English Intelligence Centre at a seminar held in April 1971. 98.     The two operations of interrogation in depth by means of the five techniques led to the obtaining of a considerable quantity of intelligence information, including the identification of 700 members of both IRA factions and the discovery of individual responsibility for about 85 previously unexplained criminal incidents. 99.     Reports alleging physical brutality and ill-treatment by the security forces were made public within a few days of Operation Demetrius (described above at paragraph   39). A committee of enquiry under the chairmanship of Sir Edmund Compton was appointed by the United Kingdom Government on 31 August 1971 to investigate such allegations. Among the 40 cases this Committee examined were 11   cases of persons subjected to the five techniques in August 1971; its findings were that interrogation in depth by means of the techniques constituted physical ill ‑ treatment but not physical brutality as it understood that term. The Committee’s report, adopted on 3 November 1971, was made public, as was a supplemental report of 14 November by Sir Edmund Compton in relation to 3 further cases occurring in September and October, one of which involved the techniques. 100.     The Compton reports came under considerable criticism in the United Kingdom. On 16 November 1971, the British Home Secretary announced that a further Committee had been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Parker of Waddington to consider ‘whether, and if so in what respects, the procedures currently authorised for interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism and for their custody while subject to interrogation require amendment’. The Parker report, which was adopted on 31 January 1972, contained a majority and a minority opinion. The majority report concluded that the application of the techniques, subject to recommended safeguards against excessive use, need not be ruled out on moral grounds. On the other hand, the minority report by Lord Gardiner disagreed that such interrogation procedures were morally justifiable, even in emergency terrorist conditions. Both the majority and the minority considered the methods to be illegal under domestic law, although the majority confined their view to English law and to ‘some if not all the techniques’. 101.     The Parker report was published on 2 March 1972. On the same day, the United Kingdom Prime Minister stated in Parliament: ‘[The] Government, having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with reference to any future operations, have decided that the techniques ... will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation.’ He further declared: ‘The statement that I have made covers all future circumstances. If a Government did decide ... that additional techniques were required for interrogation, then I think that ... they would probably have to come to the House and ask for the powers to do it.’ As foreshadowed in the Prime Minister’s statement, directives expressly prohibiting the use of the techniques, whether singly or in combination were then issued to the security forces by the Government (see paragraph 135 below). 102.     At the hearing before the Court on 8 February 1977, the United Kingdom Attorney-General made the following declaration: ‘The Government of the United Kingdom have considered the question of the use of the ‘five techniques’ with very great care and with particular regard to Article   3 of the Convention. They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the ‘five techniques’ will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation.’ 103.     The Irish Government referred to the Commission 8 cases of persons submitted to the five techniques during interrogation at the unidentified centre or centres between 11 and 17 August 1971. A further case, that of T 22, considered in the Commission’s report in the context of Palace Barracks, concerned the use of the five techniques in October 1971. The Commission examined as illustrative the cases of T 6 and T 13, which were among the 11 cases investigated by the Compton Committee. 104.     T 6 and T 13 were arrested on 9 August 1971 during Operation Demetrius. Two days later they were transferred from Magilligan Regional Holding Centre to an unidentified interrogation centre where they were medically examined on arrival. Thereafter, with intermittent periods of respite, they were subjected to the five techniques during four or possibly five days; neither the Compton or Parker Committees nor the Commission were able to establish the exact length of the periods of respite. The Commission was satisfied that T 6 and T 13 were kept at the wall for different periods totalling between twenty to thirty hours, but it did not consider it proved that the enforced stress position had lasted all the time they were at the wall. It stated in addition that the required posture caused physical pain and exhaustion. The Commission noted that, later on during his stay at the interrogation centre, T 13 was allowed to take his hood off when he was alone in the room, provided that he turned his face to the wall. It was not found possible by the Commission to establish for what periods T 6 and T 13 had been without sleep, or to what extent they were deprived of nourishment and whether or not they were offered food but refused to take it. The Commission found no physical injury to have resulted from the application of the five techniques as such, but loss of weight by the two case-witnesses and acute psychiatric symptoms developed by them during interrogation were recorded in the medical and other evidence. The Commission, on the material before it, was unable to establish the exact degree of any psychiatric after-effects produced on T 6 and T 13, but on the general level it was satisfied that some psychiatric after-effects in certain of the fourteen persons subjected to the techniques could not be excluded. 105.     T 13 claimed in addition to have been beaten and otherwise physically ill ‑ treated, but the medical evidence before the Commission, as the delegates explained at the hearing before the Court on 21 April 1977, gave reason to doubt that he had been assaulted to any severe degree, if at all. Accordingly, the Commission treated the allegations in regard to T 13 as concerning the five techniques only. T 6 similarly alleged that he was also assaulted in various ways at, or during transport to and from, the centre. On 17 August 1971 he was medically examined on leaving the centre and also on his subsequent arrival at Crumlin Road Prison where he was then detained until 3 May 1972. The medical reports of these examinations and photographs taken on the same day revealed on T 6’s body bruising and contusions that had not been present on 11   August. While not accepting all T 6’s allegations, the Commission was ‘satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that certain of these injuries ... [were] the result of assaults committed on him by the security forces at the centre’. As a general inference from the facts established in T 6’s case, the Commission also found it ‘probable that physical violence was sometimes used in the forcible application of the five techniques’. 106.     Although several other cases were referred to before the Commission by the applicant Government in connection with the unidentified interrogation centre or centres, no detailed allegations or findings are set out in the Commission’s report except in the case of T 22 which was one of the ‘41 cases’. The medical evidence established that when leaving the centre and on entering Crumlin Road Prison, T 22 had suffered superficial bruising. The Commission’s short assessment of this case, which it described as comparable to the case of T 6, was that ‘there exists a strong indication that the course of events was similar to that found in the illustrative [case]’. 107.     T 13 and T 6 instituted civil proceedings in 1971 to recover damages for wrongful imprisonment and assault; their claims were settled in 1973 and 1975 respectively for £15,000 and £14,000. The twelve other individuals against whom the five techniques were used have all received in settlement of their civil claims compensation ranging from £10,000 to £25,000.” 15.     Regarding the legal assessment of the five techniques under Article   3 of the Convention the Court found as follows: “AS TO THE LAW 148.     ... They [the applicant Government] also maintain – though they do not ask the Court to make a specific finding – that the British Government failed on several occasions in their duty to furnish the necessary facilities for the effective conduct of the investigation. The Commission does not go as far as that; however, at various places in its report, the Commission points out, in substance, that the respondent Government did not always afford it the assistance desirable. The Court regrets this attitude on the part of that Government; it must stress the fundamental importance of the principle, enshrined in Article 28 sub-paragraph (a) in fine , that the Contracting States have a duty to cooperate with the Convention institutions. ... B.     Questions of proof 160.     In order to satisfy itself as to the existence or not in Northern Ireland of practices contrary to Article 3, the Court will not rely on the concept that the burden of proof is borne by one or other of the two Governments concerned. In the cases referred to it, the Court examines all the material before it, whether originating from the Commission, the Parties or other sources, and, if necessary, obtains material proprio motu . 161.     The Commission based its own conclusions mainly on the evidence of the one hundred witnesses heard in, and on the medical reports relating to, the sixteen ‘illustrative’ cases it had asked the applicant Government to select. The Commission also relied, but to a lesser extent, on the documents and written comments submitted in connection with the ‘41 cases’ and it referred to the numerous ‘remaining cases’ (see paragraph 93 above). As in the ‘Greek case’ (Yearbook of the Convention, 1969, The Greek case, p. 196, para. 30), the standard of proof the Commission adopted when evaluating the material it obtained was proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The Irish Government see this as an excessively rigid standard for the purposes of the present proceedings. They maintain that the system of enforcement would prove ineffectual if, where there was a prima facie case of violation of Article 3, the risk of a finding of such a violation was not borne by a State which fails in its obligation to assist the Commission in establishing the truth (Article 28, sub ‑ paragraph (a) in fine, of the Convention). In their submission, this is how the attitude taken by the United Kingdom should be described. The respondent Government dispute this contention and ask the Court to follow the same course as the Commission. The Court agrees with the Commission’s approach regarding the evidence on which to base the decision whether there has been violation of Article   3. To assess this evidence, the Court adopts the standard of proof ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but adds that such proof may follow from the coexistence of sufficiently strong, clear and concordant inferences or of similar unrebutted presumptions of fact. In this context, the conduct of the Parties when evidence is being obtained has to be taken into account. C.     Questions concerning the merits 162.     As was emphasised by the Commission, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article   3. The assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim, etc. 163.     The Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and, under Article 15 para. 2, there can be no derogation therefrom even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation. 164.     In the instant case, the only relevant concepts are ‘torture’ and ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’, to the exclusion of ‘inhuman or degrading punishment’. 1.     The