CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 juin 2010

.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 } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2F9A9989 { width:28.78pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s15E2B0A7 { height:13.15pt } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s14DAB0A7 { height:13.95pt } .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 } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6B815053 { margin-left:72.05pt; text-indent:-36.6pt; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s464BD798 { width:20.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD5A5BBC1 { color:#3366ff } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .s846B54EF { font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)67 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Saadi against United Kingdom   (Application No. 13229/03, judgment of 29 January 2008, Grand Chamber)     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 judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a violation of the applicant’s right to be informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest (violation of Article 5, paragraph 2) (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 judgment;   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 applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its 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   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case. Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)67   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Saadi against United Kingdom     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to be informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest. Upon his arrival in the United Kingdom, the applicant, an Iraqi national, claimed asylum. He was placed in a detention facility for asylum-seekers on the basis that his claim was being treated according to a “fast-track” procedure. The detention lasted seven days. The applicant was granted asylum on 14/01/2003.   The first time the applicant was told of the real reason for his detention was through his representative when he had already been in detention for 76 hours. The European Court held that this delay was not compatible with the requirement under Article 5, paragraph 2 of the Convention that such reasons be given “promptly”.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 3,000 EUR 3,000 EUR Paid on 25/04/2008   b) Individual measures   The European Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction. In the circumstances, no further individual measure appears necessary.                   General measures   The reasons for detention of asylum-seekers upon arrival in the United Kingdom are listed in form IS91R (“Reasons for Detention and Bail Rights” notice), as referred to in paragraph 13 of the judgment. The completed form is presented to asylum-seekers when they are detained. The form sets out a list of boxes to tick, indicating the basis on which detention is authorised. At the time of the applicant’s detention, there was no box on the form which stated that the purpose of detention was to process an application through the fast ‑ track procedure. The form was changed in April 2002 to include a box indicating that detention was authorised for applications “which may be decided using the fast-track procedures”.   In addition, in July 2004, an instruction was circulated to Immigration Officers responsible for filling in the forms, stating that they must include all the reasons why detention is considered appropriate and not just focus upon the sole reason that detention is authorised to process an application under the fast-track procedure.   Following these changes, asylum-seekers who are detained due to their application being processed under the fast-track procedure, are notified immediately of the reason for their detention.   The European Court’s judgment has been published in several law journals and the national press.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that the United   Kingdom has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies