CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 11 mars 2021

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8A75A232 { font-weight:bold; color:#000000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCEF2C954 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Resolution CM/ResDH(2021)50 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Three cases against the United Kingdom   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 March 2021 at the 1398 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 43290/98 McSHANE 28/05/2002 28/08/2002 24746/94 HUGH JORDAN 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 58559/09 COLLETTE AND MICHAEL HEMSWORTH 16/07/2013 16/10/2013   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”,   Having regard to the final judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee in these cases and to the procedural violations of Article 2 established on account of shortcomings in the proceedings for investigating the deaths of the applicants’ next-of-kin, and, in the case of McShane, to the failure by the State to comply with its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention in that the police had, albeit unsuccessfully, brought disciplinary proceedings against the solicitor who represented the applicant in domestic proceedings for having disclosed witness statements to the applicant’s legal representatives before the Court;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Recalling the Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2009)44 adopted on 19 March 2009 at the 1051 st meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, which decided to close both the examination of the general measures taken in response to the violation of Article 34 given, inter alia, the assurances given by the authorities to prevent interference with the right of individual petition, and the examination of the McShane case with respect to individual measures;   Having examined the information provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted in order to give effect to the Hugh Jordan and Collette and Michael Hemsworth judgments including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see, most recently, document DH-DD(2021)101 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was therefore resolved, given that the respective inquest proceedings and related litigation have concluded; the coroner had, where applicable, referred the cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions (Northern Ireland) for a decision on prosecution; and it was open to the applicants to bring a judicial review should the DPP(NI) decide that no further prosecution should be brought;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings in investigations found by the Court in the present judgments continues to be examined within the framework of the McKerr group of cases and that the closure of these cases therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases as regards the individual measures and   DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.