CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 22 March 2016   THIRD SECTION Application no 5310/71 Ireland against the United Kingdom lodged on 16 December 1971   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the judgment Ireland v. the United Kingdom (18 January 1978, Series A no.   25), which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Having regard to the fact that the revision request was uploaded on the Irish Government’s secure website on 4 December 2014, do the parties consider that the six-month time-limit provided by Rule 80 § 1 of the Rules of Court was complied with?   In particular, the Government of the United Kingdom are invited to indicate: (a) the date at which the documents on which the revision request is based were declassified; (b) the procedures under which they became accessible at the national archives at Kew, London; and (c) the ways in which the declassification procedure might have become known to the general public and/or to the Irish Government.   2.     Given that the revision request is aimed at obtaining the reversal of the Court’s conclusion contained in the judgment of 18 January 1978 (hereinafter, the “original judgment”) according to which the “five techniques of deep interrogation” amounted to “inhuman and degrading treatment” and not to “torture”, do the parties consider that the Court may revise its judgment (Rule 80 of the Rules of Court) in order to modify the grounds on which a violation of one of the provisions of the Convention was found?   3.     Do the parties consider that the documents produced by the Irish Government, on which the revision request is based, contain new information “unknown to the Court” at the moment of the delivery of the original judgment?   4.     Do the parties consider that the documents produced by the Irish Government, on which the revision request is based, amount to facts which might by their nature have had a decisive influence on the conclusion whether the “five techniques of deep interrogation” amounted to “torture”?   5.     In particular, the Government of the United Kingdom are invited to indicate whether, during the original proceedings before the Commission and the Court, any material and/or information relevant for assessing the nature, conduct and effects of the “five techniques of deep interrogation” was hidden or withheld. In the affirmative, the Government of the United Kingdom are requested to produce the said material and/or information. They are moreover asked to indicate whether material and/or information concerning the “five techniques of deep interrogation” and their consequences is currently still classified.