CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mai 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FOURTH SECTION Applications nos 50541/08, 50571/08 and 50573/08 Muktar Said IBRAHIM against the United Kingdom Ramzi MOHAMMED against the United Kingdom and Yassin OMAR against the United Kingdom lodged on 22 October 2008 The facts and complaints in these cases have been summarised in the Court’s partial decision on admissibility, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTION   1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with 6 §   3 (c) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 6 § 1, in view of the admission of the evidence of the safety interviews at trial, and in particular:   (a) were there “compelling reasons” to justify restrictions to the right of access to a lawyer (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, ECHR 2008. See also John Murray v. the United Kingdom , 8 February 1996, §§   64-65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ I);   (b) what was the significance, if any, of the administration of the incorrect caution;   (c) what is the relevance, if any, of the fact that the applicants complain about the admission of exculpatory lies told during the police interviews, rather than adverse inferences drawn from silence or self-incriminating statements;   (d) were the rights of the defence unduly or irretrievably prejudiced by the admission of the statements at trial and their use to support the applicants’ convictions (see Salduz , cited above, § 55. See also John Murray , cited above, § 63; and Magee v. the United Kingdom , no. 28135/95, § 41, ECHR 2000 ‑ VI)?