CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 7 décembre 1984

.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 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Duinhof and Duijf case, delivered on 22 May 1984 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that this case had its origin in two applications against the Netherlands lodged in December 1981 and February 1982 with the European Commission of Human Rights under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention by two Dutch nationals, Mr Bernard Joost Duinhof and Mr Robert Duijf, alleging violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention;   Recalling that this case had been brought before the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights and by the Government of the Netherlands;   Whereas in its judgment of 22 May 1984, the Court unanimously:   - Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), in respect of each applicant;   - Holds that the respondent state is to pay to each applicant the sum of three hundred (300) Dutch Guilders under Article 50 (art. 50);   Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention";   Having invited the Government of the Netherlands to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention to abide by the judgment;   Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the Netherlands informed the Committee of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears at the appendix to this resolution;   Having taken note of this information and having satisfied itself that the Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants the sum awarded by the Court under Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention,   Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.   Appendix to Resolution DH (84) 8   Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands during the examination of the case of "Duinhof and Duijf" by the Committee of Ministers   As a consequence of, inter alia, the complaints lodged by the above-mentioned applicants, the Netherlands Government has taken the following measures with respect to Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention:   A.   In March 1983 the following regulations came into force having been incorporated in the rules governing the application of military penal and disciplinary law as laid down by ministerial order.   The following rules shall apply to military suspects remanded in custody such as the conscientious objectors in question:   a.   The commanding officer may order a serviceman to be remanded or kept in custody only if two conditions are fulfilled:   1.   a remand in custody must be admissible in the case in question,   2.   there must be grounds for a remand in the case in question.   b.   As soon as the grounds on which the remand in custody was ordered or ordered to be continued cease to be applicable, the commanding officer shall order the release of the defendant.   c.   If the commanding officer orders the suspect to be taken into or kept in custody, where possible subsequent to having interviewed the suspect or having arranged for the suspect to be interviewed on his behalf, he shall ensure that the military prosecutor is informed of the case by telephone as soon as possible and in any event no later than two days after the warrant of arrest is executed.   d.   If the suspect is to appear before the military prosecutor, the commanding officer shall ensure, in consultation with the military prosecutor, that the time and place of the hearing are such that, within four days of the execution of the warrant of arrest:   1.   the military prosecutor is able to submit his recommendations to the authority to which the case is to be referred;   2.   the authority to which the case is to be referred may issue a referral order (which shall include a ruling in respect of the arrest);   3.   the defendant may be heard by the examining officer;   4.   the defendant may appear before a court martial which shall rule at the request of the military prosecutor whether or not to uphold the order of arrest.   B.   Bills for the revision of the administration of military justice are currently under consideration by the Lower House of Parliament. One of the proposals is that the provisions governing remands in custody in the Dutch criminal code should also apply to military servicemen.   C.   The Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants the sum awarded by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention.