CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 29 mai 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7F95B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s780D430E { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:11pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     Interim Resolution DH (2000) 85 Human Rights Application No. 35095/97 Ainsworth against the United Kingdom   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 May 2000 at the 709th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   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 on 25 October 1999 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 18 July 1996 by a British national, Mr   Peter Alexander Ainsworth, against the United Kingdom; Whereas on 27 October 1999 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights pursuant to Article   48 of the Convention; Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 22 October 1998, the applicant complained of the absence of independence and impartiality of a Court-Martial convened pursuant to the 1955 Army Act and of the unfairness of the proceedings, of the non ‑ respect of other procedural guarantees, provided in Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, including the absence of a public hearing before a tribunal established by law, as well as of a violation of the presumption of innocence; Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention in that the applicant was not given a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaints that the Court-Martial proceedings were in other specific respects unfair and that the applicant was not afforded a public hearing by a tribunal established by law within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and that it was not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 6, paragraph 2, according to which there had been a violation of the presumption of innocence; Whereas at the 709th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 29 May 2000, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, in that the applicant was not given a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case; Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.