CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 février 1998

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s85436119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s4B895C9A { width:225.65pt; display:inline-block } .s7458AEBE { width:149.8pt; display:inline-block } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s479284D7 { width:128.15pt; display:inline-block } .sC63A23C4 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sF12FF967 { width:75.07pt; display:inline-block } .s7ADBFBFC { width:149.07pt; display:inline-block } .sA6DCD5F6 { width:43.64pt; display:inline-block } .s5D98233F { width:49.34pt; display:inline-block } .s22CB0842 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .sB2B93316 { width:89.44pt; 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 } .s55A84B1D { width:125.2pt; display:inline-block } .s6A3B6F48 { width:43.19pt; display:inline-block } .sDF2894D5 { width:105.69pt; display:inline-block } .s17B63526 { width:139.68pt; display:inline-block } .sB5D96E12 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:5.5pt; text-align:justify; font-size:13pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }     RESOLUTION DH (98) 12   CONCERNING THE JUDGMENT   OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   OF 24 SEPTEMBER 1997   IN THE CASE OF COYNE AGAINST THE UNITED KINGDOM     (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 February 1998   at the 618th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 of the Conven ­ tion 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 Coyne case delivered on 24 September 1997 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 25942/94) against the United Kingdom, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 23   November 1994 under Article   25 of the Convention by Mr Paul Matthew Coyne, a British national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaints concerning the independence and impartiality of a court-martial and the fairness of the proceedings before it;   Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 16   September 1996;   Whereas in its judgment of 24 September 1997 the Court unanimously:   – held, that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   – held, that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;   – held that the respondent State was to pay the applicant, within three months, in respect of costs and expenses 6   000 pounds sterling less 10   566 French francs, to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment, together with any value-added tax which may be chargeable and that simple interest at an annual rate of 8 % should be payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement;   – dismissed 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 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 24 September 1997, having regard to the United Kingdom’s obligation under Article   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 preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Having satisfied itself that on 28 November 1997, within the time-limit set, the Government of the United Kingdom paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 24 September 1997,   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 of the Convention in this case.       Appendix to Resolution DH (98) 12     Information provided by the Government of the United Kingdom   during the examination of the Coyne case   by the Committee of Ministers     The provisions in the Army Act 1955 which set out the procedure for the court-martial in this case were amended by the Armed Forces Act 1996 which entered into force on 1 April 1997 (see inter alia the Court’s judgment, paragraphs 32 and 52-57).     Under the new Act, the vote of convening officer has ceased to exist and its functions are henceforth divided amongst three different bodies: the "higher authority" (a senior officer who decides whether cases should be dealt with summarily, referred for prosecution or dropped), the "prosecuting authority" and "court administration officers" (officers independent of both the higher authority and the prosecuting authority, responsible for organising the court-martial).   Each court-martial henceforth includes a judge-advocate as a member, whose advice on points of law are binding on the court and who has a vote on sentence, but not on conviction. The casting vote, if needed, rests with the president of the court-martial, who also gives reasons for the sentence in open court. The Judge Advocate General no longer provides general legal advice to the Secretary of State for Defence.   Findings of a court-martial are no longer subject to confirmation or revision by a confirming officer (whose role has been abolished). Each service establishes instead a reviewing authority which conducts a single review of each case and provides reasoned decisions. Post-trial advice received by the authority from a judge advocate (who must be different from the one who officiated at the court-martial) is disclosed if requested by the petitioner.   A right of appeal against sentence only to the (civilian) Courts-Martial Appeal Court has been added to the existing right of appeal against conviction.   The Government of the United Kingdom is of the opinion that the measures adopted will prevent new violations similar to the one found in this case and that therefore, the United Kingdom has complied with its obligations under Article 53 of the Convention.