CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9025B625 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sFBD4F1E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:8.75pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCC5122F2 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s84A0F825 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:432pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-48pt; font-size:10pt } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA6EF60A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:384pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s7A64F404 { text-decoration:underline } .s5B629078 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:12pt } .s149A98 { width:22.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)134 [1]   Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights T and V against United Kingdom   (T, application No. 24724/94, judgment of 16 December 1999) (V, application No. 24888/94, judgment of 16 December 1999)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern an infringement of the right to a fair trial, the applicants (10 years old at the material time) having been unable “to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings against them” (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) and to the right to an independent tribunal because the tariff, in sentences during Her Majesty's pleasure, was set by the Home Secretary (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1); lastly the case concerns a violation of the right to have the lawfulness of one's detention reviewed by a court (violation of Article 5, paragraph 4) (see details in Appendix).   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the United Kingdom's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix);   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having decided at its 803rd meeting on 22 July 2002, in view of the measures taken by the respondent state, details of which appear in the Appendix, to put an end to its examination of the cases,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)134   Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of T and V against United Kingdom     Introductory case summary   These cases concern first, the conditions in which the applicants, 10 years old at the time when the offence was committed, had been tried for murder of a two-year-old child, and secondly, the sentence they received.   As regards the trial, the European Court held that there had been a violation of the right to a fair trial, the applicants having been unable “to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings against them” because of the conditions of the trial (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).   As regards the sentences, the Court held that there had been a violation of the right to an independent tribunal because the tariff (in sentences during Her Majesty's pleasure) was set by the Home Secretary, who was “clearly not independent of the executive” (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1);   The Court also held that there had been a violation of the right to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by a court (violation of Article 5, paragraph 4): the tariffs having been initially set by the Home Secretary rather than the sentencing judge, it cannot be said that the supervision required by article 5, paragraph 4 was incorporated in the trial court's sentence. Moreover, since the Home Secretary's decision setting the tariffs was quashed and no new tariff was determined, the applicants' access to a tribunal for periodic review of the continuing lawfulness of their detention remained inchoate.     I.   Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures     a) Details of just satisfaction     Name and application No. Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total T, No 24724/94 - - 18   000 GBP 18   000 GBP Paid on 16/03/2000 V, No 24888/94 - - 32   000 GBP 32   000 GBP Paid on 16/03/2000     b) Individual measures   Although reopening of the proceedings was in principle possible under the law of England and Wales, this avenue was not explored: the applicants and their representatives stated that they did not intend to request reopening.   It is furthermore recalled that the initial judge in the case recommended tariffs – the compulsory part of the sentence – of 8 years. The Lord Chief Justice recommended a period of 10 years. The Home Secretary, exercising the special powers he had (but has no longer in respect of juveniles as a consequence of the European Court's judgment), increased the tariffs to 15 years. His decision was quashed by the House of Lords but no further decision was taken on the length of the tariffs. Following the European Court's judgment the Home Secretary sought the views of the Lord Chief Justice who recommended the original tariffs set by the trial judge of 8 years.   The Home Secretary accepted the original tariffs set by the judge. These tariffs expired in November 2000.   II.   General measures   As regards the trial :   On 16 February 2000, the Lord Chief of Justice issued a Practice Direction which deals with the criticism made by the Strasbourg Court in relation to the trial of children and young persons before the Crown Court.   The Practice Direction sets out the following principle: “The trial process should not itself expose the young defendant to avoidable intimidation, humiliation and distress. All possible steps should be taken to assist the young defendant to understand and participate in the proceedings”.   It also sets out recommendations to this end to be followed before the trial, in particular at the plea and directions hearing, and during the trial itself. It recommends, inter alia and in reply to the criticisms made in the Court's judgment, that: “The trial should, if practicable, be held in a courtroom in which all the participants are on the same or almost the same level” and “The court should be prepared to restrict attendance at the trial to a small number, perhaps limited to some of those with an immediate and direct interest in the outcome of the trial. The court should rule on any challenged claim to attend.”   The Practice Direction specifies that it does not apply to appeals and committals for sentence, but that “regard should be paid to the effect of it if the arrangements for hearing any appeal or committal might otherwise be prejudicial to the welfare of a young defendant”.   Moreover, in the event that similar facts were to arise, the Human Rights Act 1998 would require the competent judicial authorities to duly take into account the consideration found to be decisive by the European Court in the present cases.     As regards the tariff setting aspect :   The Home Secretary no longer sets the tariff for juveniles convicted of murder and sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure under section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.   In response to the T & V judgments, the Government of the United Kingdom enacted section 82A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Section 82A provides judicial determination of the minimum term to be served by those under 18 years olds with a life sentence, with effect from 30   November   2000.   In addition, the Home Secretary invited the Lord Chief Justice to review the minimum terms imposed by the Home Secretary on young offenders convicted of murder who were still in custody. The Lord Chief Justice issued a Practice Statement on 27 July 2000 agreeing to review all such tariffs, and the Home Secretary agreed that all tariffs announced for both new and existing cases before section 82A came into force would be set in accordance with the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation.   Section 82A was replaced on 18 December 2003 with section 269 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides judicial determination of the minimum term for a mandatory life sentence for all offenders, whether children or adults.     III.   Conclusion   In view of the foregoing, the Government of the United Kingdom considers that the violations found by the European Court in the present cases have been fully remedied and that the United Kingdom has therefore complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies