CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sBE32720D { width:17.34pt; display:inline-block } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FIFTH SECTION   Applications nos 70495/10 and 74565/10 Paul LYNCH against Ireland and Peter WHELAN against Ireland   lodged on 21 October 2010 and 17 November 2010 respectively     The facts and complaints in these cases have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     The Government are requested to: - submit any relevant statistics as regards the temporary release of mandatory life prisoners; and - confirm whether Mr Lynch’s life sentence has been reviewed since 2004; and - confirm whether Mr Whelan has already served his fixed term sentence and whether he has had any review of his life sentence.   2. Are the complaints of the applicants under Articles 5 and 6 and, in particular, of Mr Whelan premature? Can Mr Whelan claim to be a victim of a violation of those Articles of the Convention?   3. Is the applicants’ continued detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was their sentence imposed “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, and is their detention still justified under Article 5 § 1(a) by reference to their initial convictions for murder?   Are the applicants entitled under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to a procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their detention before a court? If so, does Irish law provide them with such a procedure ( inter alia , Wynne v. the United Kingdom , 18 July 1994, Series A no. 294 ‑ A; Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002 ‑ IV; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04)?   4. Has the determination of the applicants’ sentences, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1, been carried out by a court or by the executive ( V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999 ‑ IX)?