CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 24 mars 1982

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the applications lodged by Mr Bernard Leo McVeigh, Mr Oliver Anthony O'Neill and Mr Arthur Walter Evans against the United Kingdom (Applications Nos. 8022/77, 8025/77 and 8027/77);   Whereas on 24 April 1981 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;   Whereas in their applications introduced on 29 July 1977, the applicants complained of having been arrested and detained for "examination" under the "Prevention of Terrorism" legislation in force in the United Kingdom, of various measures, such as fingerprinting and photography, taken during their detention and of the retention by the authorities of certain records following their release, two of the applicants, Mr McVeigh and Mr Evans, also complaining that they were not allowed to join or contact their wives;   Whereas the applicants alleged breaches of Articles 5, paragraphs 1-5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4, art. 5-5), 8 and 10 (art. 8, art. 10) of the Convention;   Whereas the Commission, after having ordered the joinder of the three applications, declared them admissible on 8 December 1979;   Whereas the Commission, in its report adopted on 18 March 1981, expressed the opinion by thirteen votes to one that there had been no breach of Article 5, paragraphs 1 and 3 (art. 5-1, art. 5-3) of the Convention, by thirteen votes with one abstention that there had been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 2 (art. 5-2), by twelve votes with two abstentions that there had been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), by thirteen votes with one abstention that there had been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), by unanimity that the measures such as fingerprinting taken during the applicants' detention had not been in breach of Article 8 (art. 8), by eleven votes to one with two abstentions that the retention of records after release had not been in breach of Article 8 (art. 8), by unanimity that the fact that the applicants McVeigh and Evans had been prevented from joining their wives involved no breach of Article 8 (art. 8) and by twelve votes to two that the fact that these applicants had also been prevented from contacting their wives involved a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention;   Whereas, during the examination of this case, the representative of the Government of the United Kingdom drew the attention of the Committee of Ministers to the fact that there had been a conflict of evidence as to whether the applicants McVeigh and Evans had requested that telephone messages be passed to their wives to say that they had been detained, and in particular drew attention to the fact that at the relevant time there existed a system for recording such requests but that, in the applicants' cases, there was no record of any such request having been made and that consequently it was the view of the Government of the United Kingdom that the absence of any record indicated that no such requests were in fact made by the applicants, whilst the Commission found that the two applicants in question had asked to contact their wives, as alleged by them, and that they had not been allowed to do so;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the Convention;   Whereas the United Kingdom representative informed the Committee of Ministers that, since the time of the applicants' detention, new arrangements had been brought into operation following the entry into force, in June 1978, of Section 62 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and that these arrangements were designed to ensure that there would in future be a full record of all requests for notification of the fact of detention to a person named by persons detained by the police and that, in the small number of cases where the authorities decided it was necessary to delay such notification in the interest of the investigation or prevention of a crime or the apprehension of offenders, there would also be a full record of the reasons for refusal of immediate notification;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention,   a.    Decides that in this case there has been no violation of Article 5, paragraphs 1 to 5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4, art. 5-5) of the Convention;   b.    Decides that in this case there has been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention in respect of the searching, questioning, fingerprinting and photography of the applicants during their detention, nor in relation to the retention, after the applicants' release, of their fingerprints, photographs and information obtained during their examination, nor in respect of the fact that the applicants McVeigh and Evans were prevented from joining their wives;   c.    Decides that in this case there has been a breach of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention insofar as the applicants McVeigh and Evans were prevented from contacting their wives during detention;   d.    Decides, having regard to the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom on the new arrangements which have been introduced and which are set out above, that no further action is called for in this case.