CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 7 juin 2023

.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 } .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 } .sE61D1E00 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s89B09A4D { 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:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s271A7867 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sE3AB2EE5 { 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:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s4FF445DA { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s38CDD28D { 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:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sD0E88237 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sCD865505 { 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:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s6567A197 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s5A722CD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4D1FA57B { margin-left:65pt; padding-left:7pt; font-family:serif } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2023)148 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights McKerr and four cases against the United Kingdom   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 June 2023 at the 1468 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application Case Judgment of Final on 28883/95 MCKERR 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 37715/97 SHANAGHAN 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 30054/96 KELLY AND OTHERS 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 29178/95 FINUCANE 01/07/2003 01/10/2003 43098/09 McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS 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”);   Recalling that in these judgments the Court found procedural violations of Article 2 of the Convention due to various shortcomings in the investigations into the death of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s, either during security force operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion in their deaths by security force personnel;   Recalling further that, in the McCaughey and Others judgment, the Court found that there had been a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention due to excessive delay in the inquest proceedings; recalling further that under Article 46 of the Convention, the Court indicated that the authorities had to take, as a matter of priority, all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure, in similar cases of killings by the security forces in Northern Ireland where inquests were pending, that the procedural requirements of Article   2 would be complied with expeditiously;   Recalling the decisions adopted at its last examinations of the cases at the 1443 rd meeting (September 2022) (DH), the 1451 st meeting (December 2022) (DH) and the 1459 th meeting (March 2023) (DH);   Underlining   that, as for all Contracting Parties, the United Kingdom has   an obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by judgments of the Court;   Recalling the concern previously expressed as to what is a fundamental change of approach from the Stormont House Agreement, December 2014;   Recalling its serious concern that the amendments so far proposed by the government to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy & Reconciliation) Bill do not sufficiently allay the concerns about the Bill set out in its most recent decisions mentioned above;   Emphasising again that it is crucial that the legislation, if progressed and ultimately adopted, is in full compliance with the European Convention and will enable effective investigations into all outstanding cases;   Recalling furthermore the concerns of the United Kingdom Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights set out in its legislative scrutiny report on the Bill;   NOTED WITH SERIOUS CONCERN the absence of tangible progress to sufficiently allay the concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with the European Convention, the conditional immunity scheme or the proposal to terminate pending inquests that have not reached substantive hearings by 1 May 2023; while noting also the authorities’ position that delayed legislative passage has prevented such progress from being made in time for the present meeting;   STRONGLY REITERATED its calls upon the authorities to sufficiently amend the Bill to allay the concerns about compatibility with the European Convention, including by addressing the following key issues: ensuring that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland’s role in the establishment and oversight of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) is more clearly circumscribed in law in a manner that ensures that the ICRIR is independent and seen to be independent; ensuring that the disclosure provisions unambiguously require full disclosure to be given to the ICRIR; and ensuring that the Bill adequately provides for the participation of victims and families, transparency and public scrutiny;   UNDERLINED AGAIN the importance for the success of any new investigative body, particularly if aimed at achieving truth and reconciliation, of gaining the confidence of victims, families of victims and potential witnesses;   STRONGLY REITERATED its calls upon the authorities to reconsider the conditional immunity scheme in light of concerns expressed around its compatibility with the European Convention;   FURTHER STRONGLY REITERATED its serious concern about the proposal to terminate pending inquests that have not reached substantive hearings and call on the authorities to reconsider this proposal and allow the limited number of pending legacy inquests to conclude, to avoid further delay for families.