CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 10 juillet 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s85436119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC63A23C4 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sC18989D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s2EF16B1D { width:35.4pt; display:inline-block } .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) 214   HUMAN RIGHTS   APPLICATION No. 23496/94   QUINN AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 10 July 1998 at the 637th 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 11 December 1997 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 30 September 1993 by an Irish national, Mr   Dermot   Quinn, against the United Kingdom;   Whereas on 26 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 that the inferences drawn from his failure to answer police questioning had violated his right to a fair trial and his right to be presumed innocent of the charges brought against him, that he was denied access to a solicitor and that statements from witnesses who had not testify in court were admitted in evidence;   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 in respect of the drawing of adverse inferences, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention; that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph   1, in conjunction with paragraph 3 (c), of the Convention, as regards the applicant’s lack of access to a solicitor; and by twenty-nine votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in conjunction with paragraph 3 (d), of the Convention as regards the admission of written statements in evidence;     Whereas, at the 637th 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 10 July 1998, that there had been no violation in this case of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention in respect of the drawing of adverse inferences; that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Convention; that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in conjunction with paragraph 3 (c), of the Convention, as regards the applicant’s lack of access to a solicitor; and that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, in conjunction with paragraph 3 (d), of the Convention as regards the admission of written statements in evidence,   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.