CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 11 juin 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s85436119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s87A4FA53 { width:117.66pt; display:inline-block } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sA694BA14 { width:175.1pt; display:inline-block } .sC63A23C4 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC288AADB { width:140.4pt; display:inline-block } .sC676E7A1 { width:70.37pt; display:inline-block } .sBCBB62B3 { width:61.25pt; display:inline-block } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sA3C0B35E { width:89.28pt; display:inline-block } .sC18989D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s2EF16B1D { width:35.4pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s86550280 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.9pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s2ED52ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:13pt }   INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (98) 156   HUMAN RIGHTS   APPLICATION No. 22384/93   KEVIN MURRAY AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM     (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 June 1998   at the 633rd 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 2 December 1997 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 27 April 1993 by a British national, Mr. Kevin Murray, against the United Kingdom;   Whereas on 15 January 1998 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 in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 21   October 1996, the applicant complained of the drawing of inferences at his trial from his refusal to answer police questions and to give evidence in his defence as well as the denial of access to a solicitor for 48 hours after his arrest;   Whereas in its report the Commission concluded, by thirty votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; by thirty one votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 3(b), of the Convention; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph   3 (c), of the Convention; unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention and, unanimously, that no separate issue arose under Article 13 of the Convention;     Whereas, at the 633rd 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 11 June 1998, that there had been in this case no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention; that there had been no violation of Article   6, paragraph   2, of the Convention; that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph   3 (b) of the Convention and that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 3 (c), of the Convention,   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.