CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 3 décembre 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sE61D1E00 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s89B09A4D { 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:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s271A7867 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sE3AB2EE5 { 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:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s4FF445DA { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s38CDD28D { 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:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sD0E88237 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .sCD865505 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s6567A197 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:4.68pt; padding-left:4.68pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#ffffff } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s421F9159 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s4AC9B09A { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)367 Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights McKerr and other seven cases against the United Kingdom   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 December 2020 at the 1390 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application Case Judgment of Final on 28883/95 MCKERR 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 37715/97 SHANAGHAN 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 24746/94 HUGH JORDAN 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 30054/96 KELLY AND OTHERS 04/05/2001 04/08/2001 43290/98 MCSHANE 28/05/2002 28/08/2002 29178/95 FINUCANE 01/07/2003 01/10/2003 43098/09 McCAUGHEY AND OTHERS 16/07/2013 16/10/2013 58559/09 COLLETTE AND MICHAEL HEMSWORTH 16/07/2013 16/10/2013   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”);   Recalling that, in these judgments, the Court found procedural violations of Article 2 of the Convention due to various shortcomings in the investigations into the death of the applicants’ next-of-kin in Northern Ireland in the 1980s and 1990s, either during security force operations or in circumstances giving rise to suspicion of collusion in their deaths by security force personnel;   Recalling further that, in the McCaughey and Others and Collette and Michael Hemsworth judgments, the Court found that there had been procedural violations of Article 2 of the Convention due to excessive delay in the inquest proceedings; recalling further that under Article 46 of the Convention, the Court indicated that the authorities had to take, as a matter of priority, all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure, in similar cases of killings by the security forces in Northern Ireland where inquests were pending, that the procedural requirements of Article 2 would be complied with expeditiously;   Recalling the decision adopted at their last examination of the case at the 1377bis meeting (1-3 September 2020) (DH);   Underlining   that, as for all Contracting Parties, the United Kingdom has   an obligation under Article 46 of the Convention to abide by judgments of the Court;   Recalling that many general measures have already been adopted since the first judgments became final but that questions are still outstanding particularly regarding the functioning of the Office of the Police Ombudsman of Northern Ireland (OPONI) and delays in inquest proceedings in legacy cases; recalling also that the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) was disbanded in 2014;   Noting that, as acknowledged by the United Kingdom Government and also demonstrated by the fact that the investigations in some of the present judgments have not completed almost two decades after the Court’s judgments, the existing mechanisms for conducting investigations into legacy cases are not delivering for victims, their families or wider society;   Recalling that, against this background, the Committee welcomed the authorities’ announcement, further to the Stormont House Agreement in December 2014, to establish an independent single investigative body (the Historical Investigations Unit: HIU) to take over investigations into legacy cases, including some of the cases in this group, and that the proposed HIU has been presented by the authorities since 2015 as part of general measures to take over the work of the OPONI and the HET;   Emphasising that it is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used to discharge its obligations under Article 46 of the Convention;   Underlining again however that the measures must be timely, adequate and sufficient and that initiating new plans at this stage would appear to risk further delay when the need to avoid any setbacks is paramount, in view of the length of time that victims’ families have already been waiting for answers;   Noting with interest the authorities’ continued commitment to reforming the current approach to addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past and the indication that they intend to consult with all key stakeholders before progress can be made; strongly encouraged them to conduct a transparent and meaningful consultation with victims’ groups and all key stakeholders to ensure that the proposals garner trust and confidence given the complex and sensitive nature of the issues at stake;   NOTED the information provided very shortly before the meeting setting out the response of the United Kingdom Government to the Supreme Court judgment of 27 February 2019 related to the investigation in the Finucane case; instructed the Secretariat to provide an assessment of this information for the Committee’s next examination, with a view to considering whether to reopen the individual measures;   RECALLED WITH PROFOUND REGRET that the inquests and investigations in the cases of McKerr, Shanaghan, and Kelly and Others have still not been completed, underlining the need to make progress with the required general measures on which their progress depends, without further delay;   NOTED WITH INTEREST the detailed plan for the conclusion of all legacy inquests within five years which has been adversely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic; strongly encouraged the authorities to pursue all of their efforts to put in place a recovery plan as soon as is possible so that legacy inquests can continue in a timely manner;   NOTED the information submitted about protection of the OPONI’s budget; reiterating the vital role played by the OPONI in investigating historical cases and giving answers to families, strongly encouraged the authorities to continue to take all necessary measures to ensure that it has the capacity to conduct its work in an effective and timely manner;   EXPRESSED PROFOUND CONCERN nevertheless that the authorities have not provided any details in response to the Committee’s request for information on the approach to legacy investigations set out by the government in the Written Ministerial Statement of 18 March 2020, in particular how the current proposals would work in practice and in compliance with the obligation under Article 2 of the Convention and the proposed legislative timetable for those proposals;   CALLED UPON the authorities to follow up on their   previous commitments to publish and introduce legislation in the United Kingdom Parliament to implement the Stormont House Agreement to address legacy issues, as set out in the New Decade, New Approach publication of January 2020;   DECIDED to resume examination of these cases, and all relevant developments, at the 1398 th   meeting (March 2021) (DH) and invited the authorities to submit detailed information on all of the above issues by 25 January 2021.