CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 5 avril 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   254   5.4.2000 Press release issued by the Registrar   Admissibility decision in four cases against the United Kingdom   The European Court of Human Rights has declared admissible all the applicants’ complaints in the following cases:   Jordan v. the United Kingdom McKerr v. the United Kingdom Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom     The Court’s decision [1] follows deliberations after yesterday’s public hearing in Strasbourg. Judgment on the merits will be delivered at a later stage.   Jordan v. the United Kingdom   This case concerns an application brought by Hugh Jordan, who has dual Irish and United Kingdom nationality and was born in 1941. He lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland.   On 25 November 1992, the applicant's son, Pearse Jordan, aged 22, while unarmed, was shot three times in the back and killed in Belfast by officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary (the RUC). On 16 November 1993, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) issued a direction of no prosecution on the basis of insufficient evidence to warrant prosecution. On 4 January 1995, the Coroner’s inquest into the death commenced. It was adjourned on 26 May 1995 for the applicant to take judicial review proceedings concerning the Coroner’s refusal to give the family prior access to witness statements and his grant of anonymity to RUC witnesses. The inquest proceedings have still not been concluded. On 7 December 1992, the applicant had instituted civil proceedings, alleging death by wrongful act. These are at the discovery stage.   The applicant complains, among other things, that his son was killed by an excessive use of force contrary to Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He also complains under Article 2 that there has been no prosecution in relation to the unjustified killing and that there has been a failure to comply with the procedural requirement under Article 2 to provide an effective investigation into the circumstances of his son’s death. He submits in particular that the inquest proceedings are flawed due to the limited scope of the enquiry, the lack of legal aid for relatives; the lack of advance disclosure to the family of inquest statements and the lack of compellability as a witness of the police officer who fired the shots.   The applicant also complains under Article 6 that his son was deprived of a fair trial due to a shoot-to-kill policy, under Article 14 that the high number of killings by the security forces of civilians in the Catholic or nationalist community taken with the low number of prosecutions and convictions discloses discrimination and under Article 13 that there is no effective remedy in respect of these matters. McKerr v. the United Kingdom   This case concerns an application brought by Jonathan McKerr, an Irish national born in 1974 and resident in Lurgan, Armagh, Northern Ireland.   On 11 November 1982, the applicant's father, Gervaise McKerr, was driving a car with two passengers, Eugen Toman and Sean Burns. They were unarmed. In an incident, during which a reported 109 rounds were fired into the car by RUC officers, all three men were killed. Three officers were prosecuted for the murder of Eugen Toman. On 5 June 1984, the judge found at the conclusion of the prosecution case that there was insufficient evidence to establish guilt and acquitted the officers.   On 24 May 1984, John Stalker, then Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, was appointed to head an inquiry into this and two other incidents of the use of lethal force by RUC officers. He was later replaced by Colin Sampson, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police. The final inquiry reports were submitted to the RUC and DPP on 23 March 1987. In a statement in the House of Commons, the Attorney-General announced that no further prosecutions were warranted.   On 4 June 1984, an inquest had opened into the deaths of the three men. On 9 November 1988 and 5 May 1994, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland issued public interest immunity certificates prohibiting the disclosure of sensitive security materials concerning the Stalker and Sampson reports. The inquest was finally abandoned by the Coroner on 8 September 1994, following an unsuccessful attempt by the Coroner to obtain disclosure of the Stalker and Sampson inquiry materials.   On 19 August 1991, civil proceedings were issued by the applicant’s mother in respect of his his father’s death. No further steps were taken.   The applicant complains, among other things, that his father, Gervaise McKerr was killed by an excessive use of force contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. He also complains under Article 2 that the prosecution brought against the RUC officers was defective, referring, among other things, to the alleged bias disclosed by the trial judge. He also complains that there has been a failure to comply with the procedural requirement under Article 2 to provide an effective investigation into the circumstances of the shooting. He submits in particular that the inquest proceedings were flawed due to the limited scope of the enquiry, the lack of legal aid for relatives; the lack of advance disclosure to the family of inquest statements; the use of public interest immunity certificates and the lack of compellability of the police officers who fired the shots.   The applicant also complains under Article 14 that the high number of killings by the security forces of civilians in the Catholic or nationalist community taken with the low number of prosecutions and convictions discloses discrimination and, under Article 13, that there is no effective remedy in respect of these matters.   Kelly and Others v. the United Kingdom   This case concerns an application brought by nine applicants, all Irish nationals - Vincent Kelly, born in 1926, resident in Dungannon, County Tyrone; Kevin McKearney, born in 1924, resident in Moy, Co. Tyrone; Amelia Arthurs, born in 1941, resident in Dungannon, Co. Tyrone; Letitia Donnelly, born in 1936, resident in Dungannon, Co. Tyrone; Mary Kelly, born in 1936, resident in Dungannon, Co. Tyrone; Annie Gormley, born in 1926, resident in Dungannon, Co. Tyrone; Patrick O'Callaghan, born in   1913, resident in Benburb, Co. Tyrone; Carmel Lynagh, born in 1934, resident in Clones; and Brigid Hughes, born in 1946, resident in Moy, Co. Tyrone.   On 8 May 1987, 24 soldiers and three RUC officers set up an ambush to surprise a terrorist attack on Loughgall RUC station. After the arrival of an armed IRA unit at the station with a quantity of explosives, eight members of the IRA (Patrick Kelly, Michael Gormley, Seamus Donnelly, Patrick McKearney, James Lynagh, Eugene Kelly, Declan Arthurs, Gerard O’Callaghan) were killed. A ninth individual, Antony Hughes, a passing civilian, was also killed by bullets fired by the security forces.   On 2 December 1988, 20 March 1990 and 2 May 1990, seven families of the deceased issued civil proceedings. On 22 September 1990, the DPP concluded that the evidence did not warrant any prosecution. On 24 September 1990, the Coroner adjourned the inquest pending judicial review proceedings brought by relatives concerning the admittance in evidence of written statements. On 2 June 1995, the inquest was concluded.     The applicants complain, among other things, that their relatives were killed by an excessive use of force contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. They complain of a failure properly to control and conduct the operation. They also complain that there has been a failure to comply with the procedural requirement under Article 2 to provide an effective investigation into the circumstances of the shooting. They submit in particular that the inquest proceedings were flawed, due to the limited scope of the enquiry, and complain of the lack of legal aid for relatives, the lack of advance disclosure to the family of inquest statements, the use of public interest immunity certificates and the lack of compellability of the police officers who fired the shots.   The applicants also complain under Article 6 that their relatives were deprived of a fair trial due to the excessive use of force, under Article 14 that the high number of killings by the security forces of civilians in the Catholic or nationalist community taken with the low number of prosecutions and convictions discloses discrimination and under Article 13 that there is no effective remedy in respect of these matters.   Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom   This case concerns an application brought by Mary Theresa Shanaghan, an Irish national born in 1924 and resident in Castlederg, Northern Ireland.   The applicant’s son, Patrick Shanaghan, a member of Sinn Fein, was suspected by the RUC of being a member of the IRA and involved in acts of terrorism. In or about December 1990, the RUC informed Patrick Shanaghan that security force materials, containing personal information, including a photo montage, had accidentally fallen out the back of an army vehicle. He was later warned that he might be targetted by loyalist terrorists. On 12 August 1991, the applicant was shot dead by a masked gunman.   The inquest was held from 26 March to 20 June 1996   On 22 July 1994, the applicant had issued proceedings claiming damages in respect of the killing of her son.   The applicant   complains, inter alia , that her son Patrick Shanaghan was killed with the collusion of the RUC contrary to Article 2 of the Convention. She also complains that there has been a failure to comply with the procedural requirement under Article 2 to provide an effective investigation into the circumstances of the shooting. She submits in particular that the inquest proceedings were flawed due to the limited scope of the enquiry and the excessive delay. The applicant also complains under Article 14 that the high number of killings by the security forces of civilians in the Catholic or nationalist community taken with the low number of prosecutions and convictions discloses discrimination and under Article 13 that there is no effective remedy in respect of these matters.     ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1]   The text of the admissibility decisions will not be immediately available.