CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 15 juin 1992

.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 case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell delivered on 25 October 1990 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in three applications against the United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 3 June 1985, 1 September 1985 and 24 April 1985 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr Michael Keith Thynne, Mr Benjamin Wilson and Mr Edward James Gunnell, British nationals, who complained of the absence under United Kingdom law of a judicial procedure to determine the continued lawfulness of their detention pursuant to a discretionary life sentence or in the case of the two last applicants their re-detention following release on licence;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 12 October 1989;        Whereas in its judgment of 25 October 1990 the Court:   -     held, by eighteen votes to one, that there had been a      violation of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the      Convention in the case of all three applicants;   -     held, by eighteen votes to one, that there had been a      violation of Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), in the      case of Mr Wilson;   -     held unanimously that the United Kingdom was to pay to      the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses, the      sums resulting from the calculations to be made in      accordance with paragraph 87 of the judgment;   -     dismissed unanimously the remainder of the claim for      just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of the United Kingdom to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 25 October 1990, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the United Kingdom gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of the United Kingdom has paid to the applicants the sums provided for in the judgment,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the United Kingdom, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                   Appendix to Resolution DH(92)24             Information provided by the Government of            the United Kingdom during the examination           of the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell                  by the Committee of Ministers        The Criminal Justice Act 1967 was amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which will be brought into force as from October 1992.   Under Section 34 of the 1991 Act, a discretionary life prisoner will henceforth be able to require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Parole Board at any time after he has served the relevant part of his sentence as specified by the sentencing court and, where there has been a previous reference of his case to the board, after the end of a period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference.   If the Parole Board directs the release of a discretionary life prisoner, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release him.   Under Section 39 of the act the Secretary of State will also be obliged to order the immediate release of a person whose release on licence was revoked and who was recalled to prison, if the Parole Board so directs.        According to Section 32 (5), the Secretary of State may make rules with respect to the proceedings of the Parole Board.   It is intended that provision will be made in such rules for oral hearings before the Parole Board and for the disclosure to discretionary life prisoners of adverse material which the board has in its possession, both in respect of prisoners where the relevant part of their sentence has expired and whose cases are referred to the board under Section 34 and in respect of such prisoners who have been recalled after release on licence and whose cases are referred to the board under Section 39.   These rules will be brought into force with the relevant provisions of the 1991 act, in October 1992.        In view of the above the Government of the United Kingdom considers that it has taken the measures required as a result of the finding of a violation by the Court of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the Convention.        The Government of the United Kingdom considers that, provided the national law complies with the states' obligations under Article 5, paragraphs 1 to 4 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4), of the Convention, no question of a "right to compensation" arises since Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), does not require in itself that paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4) be incorporated into domestic law.   As the Government of the United Kingdom is not incorporating the Convention as such into British law, and is not obliged to do so, it follows that there is no basis on which it could legislate for Article 5, paragraph 5 (art. 5-5), of the Convention.        The costs and expenses of Mr Thynne (£ 3 707,58) were paid on 7 November 1990.   The costs and expenses of Messrs. Wilson and Gunnell (£ 17 923,87) were paid on 28 November 1990.