DONNELLY et six autres c. ROYAUME-UNI

APPLICATIGNS/REQUETES NÂ°a 5577-5583/7 2 3c :ard DCNt :LLLY and s :x others v/UNITED hINGDÃii Gerard DONNELLY et aix autres personnes c/RDYAUME-UN I
DECISION of 15 December 1975 as to the admiasibility of one part of the applicatio n and rejection of the remaining par t DECISION du 7 5 dÃ©^nmbre 1975 portant sur la recevabilitb d'une partie de la requÃªt e et rejetant l'autre partie de celle-c i
Article J of the Convention : (a) The protaotion afforded by this provieion is absolute ; Statas do not hava a chotos between respect for the obligatione imposed on them by this Artiola and the payment of compensation to the victims of treatmant in vioZatton thereof .
(b) To establirA whether or not an administrative practice of trratmant oontrary to this provision exists, it is necessary to examine what meaeuree have been taken by the autkoritiae to prevant the repetition of suoh treatment . Maca .tolaranea at the Zouar or middl of the Aierarohy is not, of itself, conoZusiv e alev of the existence of an Artialr ES ara ra h! o t avtnp ma â¢ uea o omreta radrass for a violation of oZaim to be a viutim of tha ArticZa
tha Convention : When a person, rama saa, ae obtained adequate the Convention, he oan no longer vtioiation .
8 6 of tka Convention :
(a) Doubt as to the not, of itesZf,
administrative practios .
8xhauetion of domaetio ramediae .
prospects of suocrea of a remedy does abeoZva an applicant from axhauetiny it .
(b) Tha obligation to exhaust domestic remedies requires only that an applicant make normal uea of ramediae likely to be affective and adequate .
- 4 -
(e) The mere fact that an action for damagee ie eettLed by agreement between the parties does not indioata that it constituted an ineffective or inadequate remedy . (d )
Elements from which the affectiveneee of a judicial remedy in time of disturbance can be judged : - the effect of poiica measuree pareon attempting to exhauat ; - impartiality of judgea
taken against tha
and juriee ;
- Length of prooesdings before the courte ;
- co-operation of the authorities in obtaining evidence ; - offere in settlement by proceedings .
the authorities to end
(a) In ralation to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the possibility of obtaining companeation may, in normal ctircumetancae, conetitute an adequate and sufficient remedy . The situation ie differant if an administrative practica of treatment contrary to that Article axieta . (f)
In raiattion to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, the acceptance of damagee in eettlement of an action impliae non-exhauetion of domestic remedies in relation to a oiaim for higher damages .
ArtticLe27, paragraph 3 of the Convention : From where its exa mnation aÃ®i e Ã´aan jÃ´sna tÃª o Ãhe mortGe of the caes, the question of exhaustion of domertic remediae (Article 26 of the Convention) affecte the,admieeibi7ity of the application . Article 29 0~ the C onvantion : Unanimous rejection of part o f t a a~tone Â¢ raa y Ã¢clared adm!seible, inaffectivcnees or inadaquaoy of the rumediee pureued by the applicants not having been aetabliehod .
- 5 -
Articia
3 da
la Convention
:
(a) La protection accordÃ©e par cette diepoeition cet abeoZue ; Lae Etate n'ont pas la choix entre Za raepact dae obligations que Zeur impose cet article et La varaamant d'indamnitQs aux victimes de traitemente qui Zui earatisnt contraires . (b) Pour AtabZir s'il existe ou non une pratique administrative de traitements contrairae d catta disposition iZ faut ssamtiner quelles meeuree ont Atd prieae par Lae autoritde pour ampQcher laur rdpdtittion . Une simpZa toldranoe aux niveaux infAriaur ou moyen da la hiÃ©rarchie na permet pas, Ã elle eeula, de concLura d Z'exietence d'une pratiqua adminÃ¯strativa . ArticLe 25, ara ra ha 1 de La Convention : Lorsqu'une a recours internee, a pareonne, ayant fast usage a vosae obtenu un radraeeament addquat d'une vioLation de la Convention, elle ne peut pZue se prdtendre victime de cstte vioLation . ArtioZe 2 6 de Za Convention tntarnes .
: Epuieamant dae
voiae da recours
(a) Un doute sur les chances de sucode d'un recours n e
dispanea pan, d lui scuZ, de l'exercer . (b)
L'obligation d'dpuieer les voiee de recours internes ea Ltimita d ceila da fatra un ueaga normal dee recours uraisambZablament efficaces et euffieante .
(c) La ssuL fait qu'une aotionen dommagae - intdrQte e'eet rdpLda par une transaction n'indique pas que ratta actionconetituait un recours inafficaca ou inadtquat . (d) EZQmente parmattant dajupur de Z'afficacitd d'un recours judiciaire an pAriodetroubZQe : - effat de maÃ©urae de poLica prieee tente da recourir ;
contre
celui
quti
- tmpartiaZitA des juges et dee jur2s ; - durda de
l'examan deÃ¨ recours par
les
tribunaux
- coopdration dee autoritÃ©s pour rassembler dee prauve e - offres d'indemnitÃ©s par les fin aux proc2dures .
- 6 -
autoritde
poÃ»r mettre
(a )
S'agissant de traitements contraires d Z'articia 3 de ta Convantion, Za possibilitÃ© d'obtenir una indemnitÃ©paut constituer, dans dee circonetancae Il en normaZae, un recours adÃ©quat et euffisant . va diffÃ©remment e'iZ ezieta une pratique adminietrative da traitements contrairas audit article .
(f)
S'apiesant de traitements contraires d l'articZa 3 de la Convention, Za fait d'avoir accaptÃ© une indamnit0 traneactionnalle implique non Ã©puteamant dae voiee de recours internes pour une indemnitÃ© eupÃ©rieura .
ara ra he 3 da la Convention : Mdme lorsque son Article 27, e affaire, Za question t Jaunt ca u~. u on examen a de Z'Ã©puieement das voiae de recoure internee (article 26 de la Convention) affecte Za recevabilitÃ© de la requ0ta . Article 29 de la Conventio n : Rejat d l'unanimitÃ© d'une partie des raqu0tas antArieurament dÃ©clarÃ©es recavablee, la caractÃ¨re inefficace ou inadÃ©quat dae recours formÃ©e par Zae raquÃ©rant s n'ayant pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli .
(franÃ§aie
:
voir p .091
THE SUBSCANCE OF THE APPLICATICN S The aeven applicants (Gerard DONNELLY, Gerard BRADLEY, Edward DUFFY, John CARLIN ; Francis McBRIDE, Anthony KELLY and Thomas I:EARNS)are citizens of the United Kingdom . They have alleged in their applications that, following their arrest on various days in April 1972, they were subjected to treatment in violation of Art . 3 of the Convention by members of the security forces of the respondent Government . The applicants have also alleged that the treatment to adminiswhich they were subjected formed part of a continuing trative practice encouraging or permitting torture or inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Art . 3 . A full summary of the applicants' original complain t and claim is set out in the Commission's Decision of 5 April 1973 (see Collection of Decisions, Vol . 43, P . 122) . Throughout the proceedings before the Commission the applicants have been represented by Mr C . Kevin Boyle, Barrister-at-Law, Belfast and Mr Hurst Hannum, A .B ., J .D ., or D?lfsst .
- 7 -
As at the date of introduction of their applications, three of the applicante, MM Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy, had initiated civil proceedings against the appropriate authorities with a view to obtaining damagea in respect of their alleged ill-treatment . Mrite were issued on their behalf on 16 May 1972 . The remaining four applicanta started civil proceedinga i n 1974 . Writs were ieaued o,, behalf of the applicant Carlin in October 1974, on behalf of the applicant McBride in Auguet 1974 a : :d on behalf ~f tLe appl_oanta Kelly and Scarns in April 19Â°4 â¢ 'fhe uctione broughâ¢ : by the appl'. .anta Donnelly, Bradley . ~d ::,:f_y wer : aettlel in July 1975 on z~ ;reed terme wherebÃ¯ Donnelly and Bradley each received :5,000 and Mr Duffy 16,00 0 indamagee together with their legal coets . In terms of the .'ettlements each o" the arolicante acceoted the relevant si .7: in full settlement of allclaima in his action and released and discharged the defendants from all claims contained in his statement of claim or arising from matters alleged in it . Fachof these applicants also undertook not to commence any further proceedings against the Crown and various other authorities and persons arising out of the period of their alleged ill-treatment or the matters alleged in the statement of claim . The action brought by the applicant McBride was ~ settled in November 1975 when Mr McBride accepted an offer of 1 301 together with his legal costs in full settlement of his claim . . Thie offer was made w i thout admission of liabilit y The civil proceedings instituted on the part of the authorities . by the remaining three applicants are still pending as a t the date of this deciaion . Throughout the present proceedings the applicants have maintained that insofar as they allege that they were victims of an administrative practice,in violation of Art . 3, the provisions of Art . 26 di the .Conventidn`rsquiring the exhaustion ofdomeatic remedies do not apply . They have further submitted that insofar as they also claim to have been the victims of specific acts in violation of Art . 3, such domestic remedies as are available are not effectiv e or adequate and that the relevant provisions of Art . 26 do not therefore apply in any event . THE PROCEEDIN08 BEFORE THE COMMISSIO N On 5 April 1973 the .Commiaeion declared the applications admissible . It held that the present applicants had "provided evidence which prima facie,subetantiates their allegation s of the existence of an a ministrative practice in violation of Art . 3 and of their being victims of that practice" . The Commission found that consequently the domestic remedies rule did not .apply to this part of the applications . It went o n to examine the applications insofar as they raised the question whether each applicant was the victim of specific acts, a s
- 8 -
distinct from an administrative practice, in violation of Art . 3 . The Cosanission stated that, in principle, the applicants were required to exhaust domestic remedies available to them in this respect . However, the Commission considered that the queation whether there was any effective remedy available in the present case could not be decided without an examination of the merits of the applications .
It therefore j oined "to the merits any questions relating to remediee to be exhausted by each applicant as the alleged victim of specific acta, as distinct from an administrative practice, in violation of Art . 3" . . The applicants submitted their written observation s on the merits of the case on 25 May 1973 . The respondent Government were invited to submit their observations in reply before 31 July 1973 . In a letter dated 17 July 1973, the respondent Government made certain submieaione in relation to the Commission's decision on admissibility and made proposals ae to future procedure in the cases . The Commission took note of the Government's letter on 19 July 1973 and decided to invite the applicants' counsel to submit their written comments on it . At the same time the Commission decided to fix the future procedure at its next seaeion and in the rtieanwhile, to suspend the time-limit (31 July 19735 for the submission of the respondent Government's written observations on the merits . The applicants' comment s dated 14 August were received on 20 August .and sent to the reepondent Government for information . In a letter, dated 8 October 1973, the respondent Oovernment commented on the applicants' letter and submitted further arguments in support of their procedural proposals . On 8 October the Commission considered its future procedure and decided not to adopt the procedure suggested by the respondent Government . It decided to maintain its invitation to the respondent Government to submit their observations on the merits of the application . The respondent Government's observations weresubmitted on 18 January 1974 . On 25 May 1974 the Commission again considered its procedure in these applications and decided to hear the evidence of the applicants . It decided also to inform the parties that it intended at the same time to hear, i f possible, any other witnesses whose evidence it considere d relevant to the .issue of the alleged ill-treatment of the applicants themselves . It therefore invited the parties to submit, as soon as possible and before 8 July 1974, their proposals for witnesses to be heard or for any other evidence to be taken . It also requested the Farties to indicate triefly the points or facts regarding which each witnes s
should be heard . Both parties were informed of the Commission's decisions by letter of 4 July 1974 .
. 9 -
In a letter of 4 July 1974 counsel for the applicants submitted a list of witnesses whom they proposed should be heard . This list included the seven applicants and seven other named witnesses whom the applicants proposed, including five doctors . The applicants also proposed that the Cosmission should hear other doctors, who had examined the applicants on behalf of the Government, but whose names they had not been able to discover . The applicants Ã¢lso requested the Commission to require the reepondent Oovernment t o make available "all medical records and reprints known to it respecting the seven applicants" . This list was communicated to the respondent Government by telex o n
10 July 1974 . On 12 July1974 the respondent Government informed the Commission by telex that two of the applicants , I4I Bradley and Duffy, were in detention pursuant to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and that one, Mr McBride, was serving a sentence of imprisonment . They observed that the Commission was aware cf the considerations to which they must have regard in relation to proposals for a hearing of persons in custody on account of the emergency in Northern Ireland . They further informed the Commission that in the event of a hearing before Delegates, they would be obliged to request certain security arrangements for members of the security forces whom they would propose as witnesses . In the same telex they drew attention to steps taken by certain of the applicants in relation to domestic remedies . They requested the Commission either to declare the applications inadmissible in accordance with certain of their submiesions in their observations on the merits or afford an opportunity for further argument thereon , or in the alternative adjourn further proceedings until the applicants had exhausted their domestic remedies . â¢ On 16 July 1974 the Commission again considered its procedure in the case . It decided to communicate the respnndent . Government's telex of 12 July 1974 to the applicants and to invite them to submit, before 1 15 August 1974, any written comments t.hey wished to make in reply . It also decided to invite the applicants to submit at the same time certain information as to the steps taken by them toexhauÃ¨t domestic remedies . The Commission also confirmed that it wished to hear the evidence of' the seven applicants, and decided that this evidence should be heard by three Delegates in October 1974 at a time and place to be fixed in consultation with the parties . It also invited the respondent Government to make, as soon as possible, proposals as to where th e detained applicants should be heard and as to the arrangements fnr such a hearing . It further decided that the seven witnrsses named by the applicants should be heard at a
- i0 -
date and place to be fixed by the Delegates in consul':ation with the parties . It also invited the respondent Government to indicate before 1 September 1974 the name of any other doctor who might have examined the applicants at the relevant time on behalf of the authorities and to submit their comments in writing on the applicants' request for discovery of documents . Finally it authorised the Delegates to decide on the calling of any further witnesses or thÃ§ obtaining of any other evidence . The Commission also recalled that, in pursuance of Art . 28 ( b) of the Convention, it was at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement . T h e Commission's decisione were communicated to the parties by letter dated 19 July 1974 . The respondent Government's telex of 12 July 1974 was communicated to the applicants at the same time . By letter of 6 August 1974 counsel for the applicants submitted certain information as to the steps taken .b y the applicants to exhaust domestic remedies and commented on the respondent Government's telex of 12 July 1974 . On various dates in August and September 1974 the solicitors acting for the applicants also submitted information as to the steps taken by their respective clienta to exhaust domestic remedies . In the meantime consultations took place betwee n the Delegates, through the Secretary to the Commiss :or, and the parties as to the arrangements for hearing the applicants and other witnesses and arrangements were made for a hearing of the applicants who were not in custody and of the other witnesses proposed by the applicants to tak e place in Strasbourg, starting on 31 October 1974 . By letter of 29 August 1974 the respondent Government informed the Commission that their consideration of the problems involved in hearing the applicants who were in custod y was not complete . They also informed the Commission that it was envisaged that they would wish security precautions to be taken in respect of the witnesses they proposed to call and that they would not be available for the hearing in Strasbourg . On 1 October 1974 the Commission again considered its procedure in these applications . It took note of the information and comments submitted by the applicants in pursuance of the requeste made by it on 16 July 1974 and of the arrangements which had been made with the parties for the hearing . It also took note of the respondent Government's position with regard to arrangements for hearing the applicants in custody and with regard to their own proposals for witnesses .
- Il -
By letter of.1 October 1974 the respondent Government informed the Commission of the names of five doctors who had examined one or more of the applicants at the relevant timeo and 1rho had not becn named by the applicants as having done so . They also enclosed with these letters copies of reports made by three of these doctors and informed the Commission that these three doctors would be available to give evidence in Strasbourg . They further stated that one of the doctors named by the applicants, a military doctor, would not be available to give evidence in Strasbourg . A copy of the respondent Government's letter and the relevant medical reports was communicated to the applicants o . n4October197 Thereafter, following further consultations with the .parties, the opening of the hearing was postponed from 31 October until 1 November 1974 . By letter dated 31 Gctober 1974 the respondent Governmcnt submitted coFies of medical reports made by the remaining doctors named by them in their letter o f
1 October 1974 . In a further letter also dated 31 October 1974 the respondent Government stated that they would wish to make proposals for the hearing of witnesses and taking of evidence on their behalf but that the precise nature of the evidence to be called must depend on the nature of the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicants . They stated that they would inform the Commission of their proposals as soon as possible after the hearing . They informed the Commission that, subject to considerations of securit y and the political situation at the time, they would, endeavour, if the Commiesion so required, to make arrangements for the applicRnt.s in custody to be heard in person . They further requested that certain security precautions should be taken for the hearing of witnesses proposed by them . By letter dated 4 November 1974, the applicant s
made certain eubmissions in relation to the security arrangemente requested by the'respondent Government for their witnesses . They also commented on a number of other procedural matters . The hearing of witnesses arranged took place in Strasbourg from 1-6 November before three Delegates of the Commission (1) . The four applicants who were at liberty, MM Donnelly, Kearns, Kelly and Carlin were heard, as were seven other witnesses proposed by the applicant s
!7) MM Opsahl, Daver and Ndrgaard .
- 12 -
whose evidence related to all seven cases . Prior to the opening of the hearing the Delegates invited the partie s to consider whether it was necessary to hear two particular medical witnesses in relation to the cases o f
MM Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy, or whether the parties could agree that the Commission should take into account their written evidence only . In the course of the hearing, the parties stated that they had agreed that there was no need for these witnesses to be heard orally on th e understanding that heir evidence would be rec ived i n writing and that it would be open to both parties to comment on it as if it had been given orally .
During the couree of the hearing, the applicants proposed that one witness, who had not been on their list, should give evidence in relation to the steps taken b y MM Kearns and Kelly to exhaust domestic remedies . This proposal was accepted by the Delegates, and the witness, a eolicitor, duly gave evidence . At the close of the hearing, on 6 November, the Delegates requested that a number of witnesses be made available by the respondent Government . They also requested the respondent Government to provide, as soon as possible, information as to the arrangements to be' proposed by them for hearing the applicants in custody and a list of witnesses which they proposed, accompanied by proofs of their evidence and information as to the security arrangements envisaged . In addition, they informed the parties that the applicants' letter o f 4 November 1970 would be put before the plenary Commission at its next session and stated that they exoected the respondent Government to submit comments, if any, i n the meanwhile . Further consultations then took place between the Secretary to the Commission and the respondent Government as to arrangements for hearing the applicants in custody and witnessee proposed by the respondent Government, in the course of which they confirmed that a hearing of :he applicants in custody could take place . By letter dated 11 December 1974 the responden tGovernmsubitdanmerofctsnhe applicants' letter of 4 November 197 1J . On 12 December 1974 the Commission considered the first interim report drawn up by the Delegates regarding the hearing of witnesses and considered its future procedure . It decided to aut.horise the Delega :es and Secretary to make the necessary arrangementsin consult.ation with the parties for the hearing o f the thr-P applicants in detention . It further decided to r,-quc=t . t9e respondent Government to arrange a suitabl e
-
13
-
locality for the hearing of witnesses prcposed by iv . It authorised the Delegates to take any necessary decisions as to the time and place of the hearing of witnesses proposed by the reepondÃ©nt Oovernment and as to the procedure for hearing them . Finally the Commission requested the parties to keep the Secretary informed of any developments in the applicants' domestic proceedinge . These decisions were communicated to the parties b y
letter dated 23 December 1974 . Thereafter further consultations took place between the Delegates through the Commission's Secretary, and the parties as to the arrangements for hearing the three applicants in custody and witnesses proposed by the respondent Government . In the course of these consultations, datey for the hearings were provisionally agreed . On 27 May 1975 the Agent for the respondent Government informed the Secretary that the respondent Government envisaged calling about 31 witnesses, which would necessitate continuing the hearing into a second week . The Delegates considered the position on the same day and agreed that itwasnot possible to carry the hearing on into a second week . The respondent Oovernment was informed by telephone of the Delegates' position and informed the Secretary that they would, in making their proposals for witnesses, supply a reduced list of witnesses whom they wished to be heard in any event . By letter of 10 June 1975 the respondent Government finally confirmed that arrangements had been made for the hearing of witnesses proposed by them and submitted lists for a total of 70 witnesses whom they proposed should b e
heard or in respect of whom they proposed to submit affidavits . They submitted atotal .of 34 sworn statements and affidavits with this letter and stated that statements or affidavit s by the remaining witnesses would be submitted as soon as possible . Out of a total of 70 witnesses listed, sworn statements, were, or were to be, submitted in respect of 34, and affidavits in respect of 36 . The respondent Government stated that in answer to the specific allegations made in the seven casesthey tendered the affidavits and would wish to call the witnesses whose statements were listed . They provided, however, a further list of 27 witnesses whom they requested should be heardinany event if it appeared to the Delegates that some selection should be made of the 34 witnesses whose sworn statements were listed . They stated that if any such selection was made, the respondent Government would propose to seek from the witnesses who were not heard an d to file, affidavits verifying their statements . They submitted that full weight should be given to the evidence of those witnesses who were not heard . They further stated, with reference to the Commission's decision of 25 May 197 4
rn invite the parties to propose witnesses, that the witnesse s
- 14 -
proposed were confined to witnesses as to the facts of the seven cases and that if the Commission proposed to pursue any question relating to an alleged administrative practice, they reserved the right to produce further witnesses and other evidence in relation thereto .
In further letters dated 13 and 17 June 1975 the respondent Government submitted the remaining statemencs and affidavits referred to in their list and also an affidavit by an additional witness who had been omitted from the original list . The hearings arranged took place on 23 and 28 June 1975 . On 23 and 24 June three Delegates (1) heard the evidence of the three applicants in custody, MM Bradley, Duffy and McBride, and of one witness proposed by the respondent Government at the Maze prison, Northern Ireland . The Delegates heard a further 26 witnesses proposed by the respondent Government at another location in the United Kingdom on 25 to 28 June . The 27 witnesses heard wer e
those listed in the ehortened list of witnesses supplied by the respondent Government on 10 June 1975 . In the course of the hearing a number of procedural issues were raised by the parties relating in particular to the security arrangements requested by the respondent Government for the hearing of their witnesses, and the statue of the statements and affidavits submitted by them in respect of witnesses not called to give oral evidence . After hearing the parties' submissions, the Delegates decided to accept the security arrangements requested b y the respondent Oovernment, although in certain cases these were dispensed with after consultation between the parties . They also decided that the statements and affidavits of the witnesses who were not called to give oral evidence should be annexed to the record of the hearings on the understanding that it was exclusively for the Commission to assess their value as evidence . During the hearing both parties submitted information as to the current state of thÃ© domestic proceedings beinp, pursued by the applicants . In particular the applicants submitted such information in a letter dated 23 June 1975 . This hearing, which ended on 28 June 1975, concluded the taking of evidence in the case, a total of 41 persons having been heard in all .
(') MM Opsahl, Ndrgaard and Frowei :i .
- ]5 -
On 14 July 1975 the . Commission decided to invite the parties to appear before i t in an oral hearing in order to make final submissions on the merits of the cases during its 119th session and, in order to shorten the hearing, to invite inthe first place the applicants and thereafter th e
respondent Covernment to submit final written observation s on the merits of the case and on certain issues in particular . The final observations of the applicants were submitted under cover of a letter dated 10 September 1975 and th e respondent Oovernment's observations under cover of a lette r
dated 18 November 1975 . On 12 and 13 December 1975 the Commission heard the final oral submissions of the parties . INITIAL SUBMISSIONS OP THE PARTIES ON THE MERIT S I.
SUBMISSIONS AS TO THE FACTS 0F THE SEVEN CASES
A.
Submissions of the applicant s
1.
The Cases of Gerard Donnelly , Gerard Bradley and war u y
It was alleged that these three applicants were arrested together on the night of 20-21 April 1972 and taken to a military post in Belfast where they were detained for' approximately 19 hours . During interrogation there each of them was subjected to the most vicious physical torture, administered primarily by Special Branch detectives assisted by soldiers . At the end of these beatings, which were allegedly conducted at 4-5 intervals throughout the nigh t and morning, i ach was made to sign a "confession" to various terrorist offences which each later repudiated . After various medical examinations and a court appearance they were admitted to hosbital on 22 April . on6 June 1972 charges against each of these applicant s were dropped . Mr Donnelly was kept in hospital until B May 1972 . It was su mir.e~t.hat he suffered bruising, particularly on the : chest and scrotum . He was in extreme pain on admission and had difficulty in breathing . The applicants state dd thaeclryundegoavryse aultn beating . In a statement by Mr Donnelly submitted together with the applicants' observations on the merits, details were given of harassmrnr. and intimidar.ion he was allegedly subjected to after his release from custody and after he had filed a formal complaint against those who had assaulted him . It was stated that. at no rime after his release was Mr Donnelly physically assaulted, a'_r .hough he was threatened and kept without sleep fnr approximately 70 hours in a R .U .C . station on
r7 r.u 30 a, .gust 1972 .
- 16 -
~ Y was detained i n hospital for a week, until Mr Bradle 20 April 197'F . It was submitted that he, too, had extensive bruising over his entire body, including the scrotum, and any movement of limbs and joints was stiff and painful . According to a statement dated 10 May 1973, Mr Bradley also allegedly suffered harassment and intimidation by the security forces after his release and complaints about his treatment, though no physical brutality . Among other incidents, his home was allegedly wrecked during a raid by the British Army in November 1972 and he claimed that he was arreste d
and threatenedby an army officer on 26 March 1973 . In a subsequent statement he stated that he was again arrested on 22 September 1973 . Mr Duffy was allegedly the most seriously injured of the three, and remained under care in hospital unti . It was stated that he evidenced the sam e l6June1972 type of extensive bruising as MM Donnelly and Bradley, and was also found to have a fractured left elbow . This necessitated an operation and the insertion of a metal screw on 3 May 1972 ; the screw was later removed in a second operation in August 1972 . Mr Duffy also alleged harassment and intimidation by the army after his release and thefiling of complaints regerding the assault he suffered . On the night following his second operation, he was arrested in his home and allegedly threatened by the detective who had broken his arm . Mr Duffy stated that he was convicted in court o n 13 September 1972 of two offences and given a suspended sentence . On 20 September 1972 he wÃ¢s again arrested by the army, but was not charged . Finally, Mr Duffy was arrested on 13 March 1973, in the middle of giving evidence in a prosecution that arose out of the assault he suffered while at the military post in April 1972 . On 26 September 1973 he was tried on charges of kidnapping and possession of a firearm but acquitted . He was, however, immediatel y arrested again and subsequently served with an interim custody order e Case of John Carlir i .Th
It was alleged that Mr Carlin was arrested in Londonderry by a joint R .U .C ./Army patrol on the night of 25 Apri1 .1972 . He was taken to different police barracks for short periods and then to police station "A" . He was interrogated there and allegedly threatened and beaten throughout the night . Early the next morning Mr Carlin was taken to police station "B" He complained about the where he was not ill-treated . trea :ment he had received at "A" and, at his own request , was examined by a doctor
. - 17 -
It was alleged that late that afternoon he was taken to a police holding centre where he was first examined by an srmy doctor and then questioned for a few hours . He claimed that during the night he was allowed to sleep for short intervals, and then interrogated again . During the second and third interrogations he was allegedly badly beaten and throughout the day on 27 April he was allegedly questioned (while being kept in a standing position) and threatened, but not physically abused . That night he was interrogated twice and allegedly physically assaulted on both occasions . He stated that he was also humiliated and degraded by having a brush shaft put into his anal passage and beingforced to get down on all fours and bark like a dog .
On 28 April 1972 he was taken to Long Kesh Internment Camp . He waa medically examined on departure from the police holding centre and on his arrival at Long Kesh . He was examined by a civilian doctor on 2 May 1972, one week after his arrest . The doctor's report had been submitted and concluded that "findings are consistent with Mr Carlin's story of being beaten and injured" . Mr Carlin was detained under emergency powers for some time after April 1972 . The Case of Prancis McBrid e It was alleged that Mr McBride was arrested in the early afternoon of 13 April 1972 at his home and taken to an R .U .C . station . During interrogation that afternoon he was allegedly.struck with fists and rigid fingers about the head and stomach . He was also told that be thrown to an angry crowd outside the station . He stated that h e
was bleeding from the nose and mouth and was very frightened, eo he a greed to make a statement . He was allegedly refused permission to see a solicitor . After making this statement Mr McBride was given a .cup of tea and after drinking some of it he claimed that he began to feel dizzy . It was submitted that it was not clear whether this was a result of the .beating or of the tea, but that there was a strong suggestion that the tea was drugged in some manner .
It was alleged that interrogation continued without stop until 4 .00 a .m . on 14 April, during which tim e Mr McBride made further statements, and that the only food offered was a plate of sandwiches and tea . He was then allowed to sleep and later questioned from 9 .31 a .m . to 2 .00 p .m . . He had been given more sandwiches and tea upon waking, but the first "proper meal" was allegedl y not offered until 2 .00 p .m . .
- 18 -
It was alleged that at about midnight he was taken from his cell and interrogated for three hours by four different men . On 15 April he was charged with murder and was transferred to Armagh Prison where he was examined by the prison doctor and later seen by the prison chaplain, who witnesses a statement made by him regarding the treatment he had received and who examined his injuries . It was submitted that he was not physically assaulted except during the first interrogation on 13 April 1972 . At his trial, Mr McBride pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment .
The Cases of Anthony Kelly and Thomas Kearn s .U
It was alleged that Mr Kelly was arrested by the British Army in the company o omas Kearns and two other men while allegedly setting an ambush near Newry o n 30 April 1972, and that he was attacked, kicked and beaten by soldiers at the time of his arrest, although he offered no resistence . He was constantly banged against a wall . The applicant stated that after making a statement he was given a cup of tea . He then complained of feeling dizzy "from the beatings" and of not knowing where he was . He was questioned again and threatened by two Special Branch detectives . The next morning Mr Kelly was taken to another R .U .C . station . He claimed that he was unable to urinate and was in a confused, dizzy state throughout the day . O n
1May 1972 in the evening he was charged with various firearm offences in Newry and was then transferred to Armagh Prison . On the evening of 1 May and apparently again o n 3 May Mr Kelly was examined by a private doctor called by the solicitor representing him . According to his report, Mr Kelly was "very brutally assaulted" . The inability to urinate and dryness of the mouth were found by the doctor to be "in keeping with amphetamine overdose" . Mr Kealy also complained of constant headache and vertigo . It was alleged that Mr Kearns was arrested in the same circumstances as Mr Ke y o-n-75 April 1972 and was also assaulted while in the custody of the army . After being brought to the R .U .C . station, he was allegedly kicked in the stomach by a plain-clothes detective and struck several times by a uniformed policeman . It was also alleged that a short time later the officer in charge of the arresting army patrol came to his cell and threatened to shoot Mr Kearns if certain guns were not found .
- 19 -
Mr Kearn s, -claimed that he then made a statement because hefeared 'h e would otherwise get another beating .AfterhiswÃ©qgventadkbctohisel .was submitted that his statement was then somewha t
.It
confused as to time and events, but that it seemed that tea was given him at least twice more sometime on 1 May . For most of that day he allegedly suffered violejrt spasms of shiverin g , his mouth was dry, his mental state was confused, and he began to hallucinate . It was stated that Mr Kearns was examined by the same private doctor on 1 and 3 May . The applicants pointed out that his report described Mr Kearns as "confused, shaking and depressed, he was very frighterred" . "Extensive injurie ;" were noted on back and neck, with a large bruise on the atomach . An analysis of a specimen of Mr Kearns' urine carried out at Belfast City Hospital showed tha t the specimen was "positive for amphetamines" . For various reasons set out in his report, the doctor had excluded the . possibility that Mr Kearns couldhave taken the drugs himself prior to arrest and he .concluded that this was a case in which a prisoner had been given amphetamine t .ely cause an anxiety state and disorientate ohim delibrat for time and place .
MM Kelly and Kearns had both pleaded guilty to firearms charges and been sentenced on 5 December 1972 to two years' imprisonment . TtiÃ© applicants submitted that the experiences suffered by each of them constituted torture, inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Art .~3 . B.
Submission of the respondent Government
1 . Genera l In their initial observations on the merits the respondent Government stated generally that., so far as the material in the application and observations on the merits were corrcerned, whether it related to matters of fac t
or to matters of law, no admission was made save as expressly indicated . In particular, the Government "do not admi t the allegations of theappliÃ¨ants Kelly, Kearns, Carlin . or McBride or the ill-treatment as respectively described by the applicants Donnelly, Duffy and Bradley" . The Case of Gerard Donnelly, Gerard Bradley an d .2
EUward
u
y
The respondent Government briefly reviewed the allegations made by the applicants .
- 20 -
They submitted that during their interrogation, the applicents Donnelly, Duffy and Bradley each made a number of statements admitting various terrorist activities . As a result, all three were charged with causing an explosio n on 13 November 1971 and the applic ants Donnelly and Duffy were also charged with causing an explosion on 30 March 1972 . The applicants appeared at Belfast Custody Court o n 22 April 1972 . According to the Government it was decided that, since the statementa might be inadmissible, the charges ehould be dropped and at Belfast Magiatrates' Court on 6 June 1972 no evidence was offered against the applicants and they were released from custody .
They submitted that at the hearing on 22 April complaints were made that the three applicants had been subject to ill-treatment when they were in custody . Investigations were made into the allegations, and, on or about 4 July 1972, Det . Constables M . and B . of the B .U .C . were charged with causing grievous bodily harm to each of the applicants contrary to the Offices Against the Person s Act 1861, and a Private C . was charged with causing actual bodilyharm to the applicant Duffy . The three wer e tried by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and a jury at Belfast and were acquitted by the jury on all charges . On 16 May 1972, whilst still in custody the three applicants instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Defence, the Chief Constable of the B .U .C . an d Det . Constable M . The writs i n these proceedings, which were annexed to the Government's observationson admissibility, claimed "damages for personal injuries : loss and damage sustained by the Plaintiff by reason of the assault and battery and trespass to the Plaintiff's person" . The Government alleged that, although it was stated at the hearing on admissibility that "that remedy will now be pursued", the applicants had taken no further action .
3.
The Case of John Carli n
The respondent Government submitted that the applicant was arrested on 25 April because he was suspected of being concerned in an explosion at Limavady on 28 March 197 2 which wrecked a passing motor car and killed the two peraons in it . He was interviewed at police station "A" and then taken to police station "B" where he complained of his arm having been twisted and his face slapped . He had previously complained of a soreness to his arm which he had said he hurt when he fell on the stairs at Police Station "A" . Mr Carlin was subsequently interrogated at the police holding centre . In the course of his interrogation, he had, according to the Oovernment, made a number of admissions of involvement in terrorism . On his release from the holding centre the doctor who examined him had found :
- 21 -
scratches on the back of his hands (j) (ii) bruising across upper bac k (iii) scratches on left elbow, an d (iv) slight tenderness on outer aspect of left thigh . Itwaastated that Mr Carlin informed the doctor that he had not been maltreated . The Government further eubmitted that, as a result of complaints mede on behalf of Mr Carlin, an inveetigation was carried out and on 8 May 1972 a senior police officer travelled to Long Kesh, where the applicant was detained in order to interview him about the complaints . He was informed by the prison officers that Mr Carlin refused to see him . Notwithstanding this, further investigations were made and, in the event, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to.whom the matter was referred, directed that there was ineufficient evidence for the prosecution of an identifiable assailant .
The Oovernment pointed out that Mr Carlin had not then instituted any civil proceedings against any authority or person in respect of his complaints . Mr Carlin was detained in Long Kesh on 28 April 1972 . On 3 January 1973 he appeared before a Commissioner appointed under the Detention of Terrorists Order and a detention order was ordered to be made against him . 4.
The Case of Pranoie McBrid e
The respondent Governmenteubmitted thÃ¢t the applicant was arrested on 13 April 1972 as he was euspected of bein . gconerdiaxplosnthadyiwcMrs had been killed . At the police station he had admitted this to the police . On 19 January 1973 he had been charged before th e Winter Assizes with the following offences : 1 . Murder of Mrs M . on 13 April 1972 . Causing an explosion on 13 April 1972 . .2 3 . Attempted murder of a police constable o n 12 April 1972 . Doing an act with intent to cause an explosio n .4 on 12 April 1972 . Possession of explosives on 12 April 1972 . .5 6 . Causing an explosion on 5 April 1972 . He had pleaded to these offences and been sen :ences as follows : 1 . Not guilty, but guilty 2. Ouilty Guilty 3. 4. Guilty 5. Ouilty 6. Ouilty - 22 -
of manslaughter = 10 year s 10 years 10 yeara 7 years 6 years 10 year s
At his trial the applicant was represented by leading and jiinior counsel and by a solicitor . At the earlier committal proceedings the same solicitor had raised a question that the applicant complained of ill-treatment . This issue had not been raised by his counsel at his trial .
"The Oovernment submitted that the B .U .C . were continuing to investigate Mr AcBride's complaints but he had .refused to co-operate in the investigation . It was further submitted that the applicant had not theninstituted any civil proceedings against any authority or person in respect of his complaints .
The Cases of Anthony Kelly and Thomas Kearn s .5
The respondent Government submitted that these two applicants were arrested on the night of 30 April 1972, together with two other men . According to the Government they had been found by members of the military force s by the side of a road in the act of setting up an ambush . Kelly and Kearns were lying in a ditch with loaded firearms . They observed that the applicant Kearns in a statement submitted with his application admitted that he was found in possession of two weapons, an M .I . carbine and a .22 rifle . A second loaded M .I . carbine was later found on the spot . The Government further stated that when interrogated by the .police, the two applicants made statements admitting involvement in the ambush . On 5 SeptembÃ©r 1972 at Armagh Court the tw o applicants were eadh convicted, on their own plea of guilty, on two counts of possession of firearms and were each sentenced to two years' Smprisonment . Both applicants were released from prison in November 1973 . The Oovernment submitted that, as a result of complaints of "severe brutality" made on the applicants' behalf an investigation was ordered by the Chief Constable . O n
10 May 1972, a police officer-requested an interview with the applicante in connection with these complaints . Mr Kearns saw the inspector and said he had "nothing to say about it" and that "I am making no statement about it and that's that" . Mr Kelly was said to have refused to see him . According to the Government, when the allegation that amphetamine had been administered was made at a later date (i .e . first, apparently, in a radio interview o n
21 May and subsequently in a letter to the police dated 22 May), the invÃ©stigating officer made further effort s to see the two men, but they refused to see him . No specimen of the urine taken from Mr Kearns (in connection with which .ations concerning amphetamine is made) wa s thP a]leP
furnished to the police .
- 23 .
Neither of the applicants had then instituted civil proceedings against any authority or person in respect of their complaints . II . SUBMISSIONS AS TO WHETHER THE ALLEGED ILL-TREATMENT 0 p PART AN ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTIC E A . Submisaions of the applicants as to matters of fac t The applicants aubmitted that throughout the period beginning with the internment operation of 9 August 1971 incidents ot torture, inhunan and degrading treatment demonstrated,that the pattern of brutality of which they themselves were victims in 1972, had continued to the time of theaubmissions of their initial written observation . They claimed that there had been n sonthemri o meaningful ef orts on the part of the respondent Governmen t to ensure that such practices are stopped . In support of their complaint the applicants submitte d 250 statements or other material relating to individual cases alleging torture or other ill-treatment by the The outline security forces of the respondent Government . of the alle g ed pattern of torture i n Northern Ireland .was, in the applicants' view, supported by independent reports, investigations, and statemente from Amnesty International and the International League for the Rights ofMan, both or which had consultative status with various international organisations ; the National Council for Civil Liberties, based in London ; and the Association for Legal Justice , the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association and the Campaign for Social Justice, all of which were in Northern Ireland . In addition, the existence of ill-treatment was confirmed by investigationa - undertaken by the World in Action group of Granada Television and the Sunday Times Insight Team, as well as by individuals in Northern Ireland who had direct knowledge of the situation . Copies of these reports and other documents have been submitted by the applicants . 9 August 197 1
According to the applicants, a number of individuals arrested during the initial internment swoop on 9 August 1971 and in subsequent operations were subjected t . Certain o"interga dpth"roctechniques , eu s subsequently investigated by the Compton Committee had been used on them for the purpose of disorientating them and rendering them more susceptible to questioning . These "Compton techniques", which included hooding, constint noise, wall-standing for periods of up to 43j hours, drprivat.ion of sleep, and a bread and water diet, were a'i,itt.edly employed by the security forces and authorise d
- 24 -
by the respondent Government . The applicants recalled that in its decision on admissibility in the application by Ireland against the United Kingdom (No . 5310/7 1 ), the Commission found that "there can be no doubt that the employment of these interrogation techniques constituted an 'administrative practice'" . (Collection of Decisions 41 at p . 86 . )
In March 1972 the respondent Covernment had accepted the minority recommendations of Lord Gardiner contained in the Parker Report and announced the abandonment of the five so-called Compton techniques . The applicants observed that it was made clear that interrogation in depth would continue . The applicants submitted that, not only had the security forces continued to violate Art . 3 but that at leaet two of the Compton techniques, i .e . wall-standing and deprivation of eleep, continued to be used despite the assurances given in March 1972 . The applicants observed that the Compton Committee had also considered allegations of other forms of physical ill-treatment . Tney referred to a number of different incidents which had been investigated and concluded tha t out of 57 incidents, in only four instances was the Report able to state that the allegations were likely to be unfounded . August 1971 - April 197 2 The applicants submitted that there was evidence that at least some of the Compton techniques continued to be used on detainees after the initial operation on 9 .August . During its enquiry into allegations of ill-treatment, Amnesty International had heard evidence of hooding, for example , as late as November, although the only case noted where all five techniques were used occurred on 9 October . In addition to the few instances of hooding etc, the most common allegations made in this period were said to have concerned brutal beatings, often during arrest by the British Army and during t.ransport to interrogation centres . Details of the many individual,cases, some with supporting medical evidence, were given in the Amnesty Report ., the Mailed Fist compilation, and statements collected by the Association for Legal Justice . The applicants suggested that the primary motivation for the torture seemed to have been to obtain information about the IRA, which had become increasingly active in the course of 1971 . The applicants maintained that there was a brief slackening of ill-treatment during December, although several brutal incidents were reported . It was claimed t.hat, with the beginning of 1972, the pattern of torture rosumed, although the primary motivation of obtaining informat.inn was gradually supplemented by a desire to press normal criminal charges against det .ainees, rathe r
- 25 -
than to resort to internment . They submitted that during this period, torture occurred most often during interrogation by the Special Branch of the R .U .C ., although beatings b y
the Army during arrest continued and might have been intended to "soften up" individuals for the interrogators . The applicants alleged that during the first four months of 1972 the most vicious physical abuses took place . Allegations of gross brutality were maÃ¢e almost daily, many of which were investigated and published by two Catholic prieste, one of whom was the chaplain of Armagh Prison . Along with the methodical beatings, allegations of new interrogation techniques arose, including the use of drugs, electric shocks, and threats . In a television programme entitled "A Question of Torture" screened in September 1972, the World in Action team of Granada Television had investigated 98 cases of torture between August 1971 and February 1972 . The physical rather than psychological nature of the torture at this time was underlined by Mr George Conningham, MP, vho stated "Given what was proved to have taken place last year, it is contrary to common sense to think that nothin g
li%ce that . had happened this year ; the differenc e I think is whereas last year, what was happening was a very organised effort of obtaining information from people by sophisticated devices which had been well thought out and trained for , wna~ seems to have been happening this year is a more informal business of thumping people and maltreating them The applicants submitted that in a less organised way" . while the techniques may have been less organised than those investi g^Ã¢Eedby Compton, the policy of brutalisation and torture was clearly upheld at least at the lower and r.!ddle levels of the security forces and command structure . .
Wit.h regard to specific allegations of th
eadminstraion felctri shock tosupectsunde r
interrogation, the applicants drew the Commission's attention to page 21 of the Granada transcript ., where it was noted that the Nortern Ireland Office of the United Kingdom Government said they "couldn't answer" when Granada asked them about the use of a "nerve stimulator" . The applicants claimed that after the imposition of direct rule in Northern Ireland on 25 March 1972 and the announcement that internment was to be phased out, the secirity forces were put under great pressure to obtain evidence which would lead to convictions in the ordinary courts of law . As a result, vicious heatings wer e :_egedly administered to detainees in an effort. to coerce ~iem into signing confessions and it was out of this part.icular period and practice that the incidents involving . .^ p-ven applicants arose . They submitted that the seven cases in chemselves were a convincing denonstration o f . . . .= administrative practice of torture that existed i n
- 26 -
Northern Ireland in the first few months of 1972 . Three cases (Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy) arose in Belfast, one (Carlin) in Londonerry, one (McBride) in County Antrim, and two (Kelly and Kearns) in County Down . Yet, while the circumstances of their arrests differed, all seven were brutally tortured during interrogation (Kelly, Kearns and McBride were allegedly given disorientating drug s
as well) in order to coerce them into signing confessions and giving information . The applicants added that several of the cases wer e given wide publicity at the time, as such serious injuries could not be kept quiet and uncontroverted medical evidence of the extent of the injuries was present in most cases . By May 1972 at least two complaints had been brought to the Commiesion alleging that the United Kingdom was violating Art . 3 of the Convention . Perhaps as a result of this preesure, both internationally and in the press, as well as political decisions taken in London, there was, according to the applicants, a decrease in the number of complaints against the security forces beginning in May 1972 . The applicants submitted that the evidence before the Commission relating to incidents of torture, inhuman, and degrading treatment and punishment from August 1971 to April 1972 demonstrated a pattern of brutality that could not be dismissed as simply a collection of isolated events . Nor should the Compton techniques of interrogation, which the Commission had already found to constitute an administrative practice, be seen as unconnected to the widespread and deliberate policy of obtaining information and confessions from detainees by means of ill-treatment . The goal of defeating terrorism was perfectly legitimate, but the consistent allegations of ill-treatment mad e in the months following internment showed that the means employed to gain information or convictions went far beyond the bounds of what constituted acceptable interrogation procedures . They submitted that the Compton techniques were a sophisticated attempt to usepsychological torture to coerce detainees into talking ; when these were brought under investigation and subsequently abandoned, they were replaced by cruder, more traditional physical techniques of torture calculated to achieve the same degree of coercion . All formed part of tite same pattern of brutality directed to the suppression of terrorism and the repression of the political minority which had been non-violently campaigning for social justice and civil rights in Northern Ireland .
May - June 197 2 According to the applicants, it .appeared that, for whatever reasons, there was a lessening of at least physical brutality during this period . Coming as it did within a - 27 -
few months of direct rule, it was hoped that this lull signified an .end to the consistent torture that had occurred up until this time . Some serious incidents were reported, among them that in which a schoolboy's arm was allegedly broken and his hair cut by soldiers and the psychological suffering undergone by two young girls interrogated in Belfast . In general, however, these could, in the applicants view, fairly have been considered isolated remnants of the previous nionths of pressure rather than as evidence in t ii emselve s
of a continuing administrative pi~actice of torture or ~degrading treatment . They submitted that the apparent suspension of administratively approved or tolerated torture during this period was evidence of the degree of control which could be exercised over the eecurity torces by the respondent Government . August - November 197 2 On 31 July 1972, Operation Motorman had been launched by the British Army, involving the re-establishment of a governmental presence (the Army) in the formally blockaded "no-go" areas in Belfast and Londonderry .
The applicants claimed that with this apparent resumption of the search for a military solution to the situation in Northern Ireland came a fierce renewal of both physical and psychological torture on the part of the security forces . While in early 1972 members of the police Special Branch were most often alleged to have engaged in brutality, most complaints in the post-Motorman period were directed against Army actions during and immediately after arrest . Sbatementsandmedical evidence subm:tte d by the applicants regarding four persons, all arrested during the last week in August, were said to be typical of the kinds of treatment and threats received by many of those in custody . The applicants stated that by August 1972 sectarian assassinations had reached their height in Belfast, and a common form of threat was to tell an arrestee that he would be shot and simply left in a field if he did not talk .Given the climate in Northern Ireland at that t .imr, this constituted according to them a very real form of psychological torture . They submittedthat the rationale for torture retained its dual character of gathering information and obtaining cnnf^ssions, for since direct rule strong pressures ha d aeen continually exerted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to charge individuals with criminal offencec rather than to intern or detain them . In additiai, as mor e
- 2 g-
members of the security forces were killed or injured, as a result of IRA activity, the attitude of "getting one's own back" became noticeable among many regiments . As noted in a statement by Fr . B ., incidents and summary punishment of suspected allegedly became more frequent in a regiment's tour of duty in Northern
of gratuitous brutality terrorists or sympathisers given district as a Ireland came to an end .
As further noted in both Pr . B .'s statement and the statement submitted by the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Aesociation, many persons, particularly teenagers, were arrested numerous times, and Army policy seemed aimed at intimidating not only suspects, but the community at large . The applicants claimed that one result of the massive influx of troops into minority districts was that victims of Army brutality became more reticent to make official complaints . They had not only lost faith in the legal process in general, but also had real fears of retaliation . The applicants stated that on .18-20 November 1972 an international conference on Army harassment was called by the N .I . Civil Rights Association . Attended by the International League for the Rights of Man, the Worl d Peace Council, and the National Council for Civil Liberties, theconference heard complaints of widespread Army brutality as well as other instances relating to shootings and harassment . A report on the conference stated "We are convinced from the evidence available that certain regiments, in particular the Parachute regiments, are guilty of continuous illegalities amounting to at times a reign of terror over large sections of both communitiee . We have gained the overwhelming impreeeion that the Army are increasingly a law unto themeelvee and that frequently the activities of som e of its members are an acute embarrassment to Mr Whitelaw . Further we consider that tnis behaviour has been encouraged by the reluctance of the Authorities down on it" . The applicants noted that the fact that almost all the statements made at this time asserted that suspects were made to remain in the "search position" of wall-standing for fairly long periods of time, and that when they tired and fell this was usually used asan excuse for kicks and blows . While the allegations did not involve the great stretches at the wall confirmed by the Compton Report, they showed, according to the applicants, that wal) .-=tanding had continued to be employed as a means of exerting "non-violent" physical pressure on detainees . The applicants claimed that allegations of deprivation of sleep also continued to be made (e .g . applicant Donnelly's statement concerning his arrest on 27 August 1972), although apparently the other Compton techniques of hooding, noise and bread and water diet were no longer being us=d on a regular baeis .
- 29 -
December 1972 - January 197 3 After the intensive Army activity and mass arrests in the weeks foilowing Operation Motorman, it was said, another apparent lul l in the regular use of torture during and preceeding interrogation seemed to have occurred . Those complaints that were made tended to follow the pattern set in August by implicating the Army more than the police, but they were not sufficiently numerous to constitute the kind of continuing practice of brutality observed earlier . February
- April 197 3
The applicants suggested that, despite denials from the respondent Government which had appeared in the press, a new intensive campaign to destroy the IRA had recently been launched . While defeat of the terrorists remained a legitimate mil'-tary objective, this new push had again brought with it increased Army harassment and intimidation and very strong evidence that the use of physical and psychological torture had again been resumed on a wide scale . Complaints were r.ow said to be directed almost entirely against the Army, and could be seen to fall into two distinct categories . The first category included those cases where physical brutality was employed . This treatment often eeemed to be inten d ed as a prelude to interrogation by the police, but it was als o used increasingly as a form of summary punishment meted out to whomever the Army felt wa . Three cases were referred to as particularl y sunco-perativ
illustrative of the latter aspect . The second category of complaints involved primarily psychological torture, .generally involving threats of being shot if information was withheld and with further ar :est if any complaints were made about brutality . The applicants claimed that, as noted in the statement of Fr . F ., many of those arrested were teenagers and, despite the discontinuance of the technique as a method of disorientation, it seemed clear that deprivation of sleep was now being used to heighten the fears and anxiety of these,young boys . In addition, threats of internment in Long Kesh, physical violence etc, were frequently made . It was true that'the number of complaints had not been as great as during earlier periods, but this was due not to any actual lessening of the number or severity of incidents of brutality, but to increased intimidation of those who had been ill-treated and a reluctance to make statements due to the almost â¢_or .plete disillusionment of the minority population with any lega : or quasi-legal remedies .
- 30 -
The applicants contended that intimidation had existed since the beginning of internment, but since the saturation tactics of Operation Motorman it had increased greatly . Many of those arrested and beaten were allegedly later charged with assaulting a member of the security forces, resisting arrest, or disorderly or riotous behaviour, in order both to cast doubt on the truthfulness of any subsequent allegations of brutality as well as to explain the injuries caused . Loss of faith in the law was, according to the applicants, forecefully noted in a joint statement of the I .L .R .M . and N .C .C .L . which called for the immediate establishment of independent machinery to examine complaints against th e security forces ; it was one of the factors which led to the founding of the Association for Legal Justice and it had been the subject of a detailed Memorandum to the British Attorney General regarding selectivity in law enforcment prepared by Fr . B .
The applicants further stated that, on 15 May 1973 , a British Army corporal was cleared of breaking a schoolboy's arm while the boy was in custody, although the soldier admitted threatening him and cutting his hair with a pocket knife . This case, and the acquittal in March of two detectives and a soldier accused of assaulting the applicants Donnelly, Bradley~and Duffy, had served to further erode what little confidenc e the minority community had left in the judicial system . The applicants submitted that at the time of their observations it was not apparent whether the present phase of torture was decreasing or remaining at its current level . They said that four particular incidents recorded in May demonatrated that the same kinds of psychological and gross physical abuses were continuing . In addition, the hooding of two of the men involved and the two-and-a-half hour s of "search position" standing undergone by another raised serious questions as to whether even the Compton techniques had been totally abandoned by the security forces . The applicants then described the alleged methods of torture . They said that the situation in Northern Ireland was unlike that of Greece, where one technique of torture (falanga) was employed in a consistent fashion on those from whom information wae sought to be extracted . Even in the Greek case, though, severe beatings remained the form of torture most widely practised . The applicants stated that, since the introduction of internment, a great many different methods of torture had been employed, some of which had been set out in a statement of Fr . B . These had varied with time, place and regiment (or policemen) involved, but several patterns of treatment were discernable .
- 31 -
The applicants submitted a numbered list of fifteen forms of torture which they alleged had been or were being earliest used . The list was said to be arranged with the . It was, methods first and more recent developments later they said, not intended to be exhaustive . This list included the five "Compton techniques" (Nos . 1-5), of which hooding, wall-standing and deprivation of sleep were said still to be used, beatings (No . 6), t falanga (No . 7), of which there was said to be at leas one documented case, standing over an electric fire (No . B), staring at a white wall dotted with holes (No . 9), which was said to increase the sense of isolation and disorientation, electric shocks, administration of drugs, assassination threats, humiliation, blackmail and bribery and water tortures . Statements by various individuals which were said to illustrate these techniques were referred to . The applicants then dealt with places where torture allegedly occurred . Whilat they did not allege that brutality and torture occurred regularly at every police station and army barracks in Northern Ireland, they said that the sites mentioned in statements alleging ill-treatment at the hands of the security forces originated from practically every e district . The vast majority of reported incidents wer from in and around Belfast ; this was due not only to the fact that Belfast was the main population centre of Northern Ireland and as a result had a high concentration of both terrorist and security force activity, but also because there was a better system of information-gathering among civil rights and other organisations . However, enough allegations had been received from areas outside Belfast including Armagh, Newry and Londonderry, the applicants claimed, to enable one to conclude that the practices which were the subject of the present application were prevalent throughout Northern Ireland . The applicants named a number of different places where ill-treatment was alleged to take place . With one poesible exception there was, in the applicants' submission, no single centre where torture was concentrated, although certain locations had allegedly been the subject of numerous complaints . It was submitted that this dispersion of torture and brutality demonstrated theoverall policy of the security forces, which was noc to isolate and interrogate only important or knowledgeable suspects, but rather to seek massive amounts of "low-grade" intelligence information from the minority population as a whole . In addition, the regular rotation of assignments in the North, resulted in an overall pattern that was capable of varying considerably in relation to a given time or a particular district .
32 -
Submissions of the respondent Government as to matters of fac t The respondent Government submitted in the first place that an applicant under Art . 25 of the Convention was not entitled to raise the issue of an administrative practice as such and that it was irrelevant to the issue arising in the present case as to whether any of the individual applicants had been subjected to treatment contrary to Art . 3 . The y did not enter into a detailed discussion of the allegations made by the applicants as to the existence and nature of the practice alleged . They denied, however, that there was in Northern Ireland at any relevant time any administrative practice in violation of Art . 3, and submitted that the evidence before the Commission showed that the policy and practice of the authorities in Northern Ireland had always been to prohibit and prevent ill-treatment and, if it did occur, to punish it .
They accepted, however, that under the Convention a question might arise as to whether an alleged administrative practice prevented domestic remedies from being effective . They subinitted that there was no evidence in the present cases of any practice which inhibited or was capable of inhibiting recourse to domestic remedies . The Government stated that during the period from August 1969 to 30 November 1973 Northern Ireland had been the scene of violent terrorist activity . 735 persons (281 of them members of the eecurity forces) had been kille d as a consequence of terrorist activity ; 9,523 persons (1,899 of them members of the security forces) had been so injured between these dates . There had been 3,56E explosions caused by such activity ; over 1 101 million worth of damage had been caused by property by such activity . The Government explained that the task of the security forces was to suppress this activity and to keep the peace between the majority and responsible for such outrages . They stated that the soldiers and policemen were, and know they were, a prime target for murder, and on duty and off they were in peril from firearm, mine and bomb . In such circumstances, the security forces had learned that an arrest must'be carried out as quickly as possible . Hesitation would invite a sniper's bullet or violence from bystanders . Where this was suspected, or where ther e were signs of a possible ambush, arrests might be hurried and therefore somewhat brusque . The Government submitted that it was, moveover, likely that, in such a situation, there would be occasions where more force was used than was necessary to effect arrest, o r a person suspected of a terrorist was ill-treated by members of the security forces who had recently seeri their comrades ;,liot and killed and seen the terrible effects of the bombers' activiti!s on innocent passers-by .
- 33 -
The Government did not seek to defend excessive force or ill-treatment but thought it necessary to draw attention to the situation, since it was from such instances that the applicants invited the Commission to infer a pattern or practice of design . The situation was, according to the oovernment otherwiee ; these incidents were an inevitable feature of, , and reaction to, a terrorist campaign . . Par from excusing euch treatment, the Dovernment and the authorities concerned had taken steps to minimiee the incidents . The military and police authorities had always had regular or standing orders prohibiting the ill-treatment of persons under arrest or in custody and governing the treatment of persons under interrogation . Annexed to the Government's observations were : (1) The general inatructions of the R .U .C . relating to the treatment of prisoners . (1lamely, R .U .C . Code Regulation 1381 and R .U .C . Discipline Regulation 62 9 ) . (2) The relevant extract from the direction on military interrogation in internal aecurity operations which was set out in the Appendix to the Parker Report . Both of these were, according to the Government, in operation at all relevant times .
Orders and instructions regarding the treatment of persona in custody were said to have been reiterated and reinforced . The Attorney-Oeneral had given directions on the treatment of persons in custody as follows : "I have told the police and the army that interrogation, whether under ordinary police powers or under the Special Powers Act, must only be conducted in accordance with law ; which means that such interrogation shal l only be conducted if the person interrogated is held under proper and reasonable conditions, with reasonable and proper opportunities for movement and with intervals for normal refreshment, .meals and rest . I have warned that in no circumstances shall any person in custod y be assaulted or intimidated and that if any person, whosoever he may bÃ©, were to assault a person in custody, he would be liable to immediate prosecution .
I have moreover made it clear that, if these instructions are broken and any form of physical ill-treatment is reported, the Director of Public Prosecutions will prosecute" . The Governnent explained that, at a number of meetings, which began very shortly after the introduction of direct rule, with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, Ministers emphasised that there must be no physical ill-treatment of arrested persons . A number of written instructions were also The Government drew attention, in particular to the issued . following :
- 34 -
"(a) On 24 April 1972 the Army issued instructions to Brigades entitled 'Arrest under the Special Powers Act Procedures' . The annex to these instructions contained standing security instructions on the treatment of arrested persons which specifically forbad e ill-treatment .
(b) On 26 April 1972 an R .U .C . force order (64/72) was issued on security arrests which emphasised that current instructions regarding treatment of prisoners which already forbade ill-treatment must be complied with and that excessive force should not be used for unnecessary ir:jury inflicted . (c) A record of a meeting in Belfast on 25 July 1972 between the Attorney-General and the General Officer Commanding contains the following note :
'The Attorney-General drew the attention between normal arrest in which evidence was available against a malefactor for which he would stand trial : and arrest under the Special Power s Act which would be made on suspicion when he was engaged in terrorist activities and which would lead to interrogation . This was perfectly'legal, provided that interrogation consisted of persistent and thorough questioning conducted in a reasonable and civilised manner, without the use of the abandoned techniques or anything like them . ' (d) In August 1972, a Ministerial directive on interrogations was followed by the issue by both the Army and Police of further instructions on treatment of persons on arrest or during interrogation which emphasised that there must be no physical maltreatment . " The Government annexed copies of the orders referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) to their Counter-Memorial . Other items of that Annex set out the direction and the instructions given to the Army and the R .U .C . which are referred to in sub-paragraph (d) above . The Government claimed they had acted promptly to investigate allegations of ill-treatment . The allegation s
made of ill-treatment following arrest operations of August 1971 resulted in the appointment of the Compton Committee withi n a matter of days . Following the Report of that Committee on 3 November 1971 on the use of certain techniques of interrogation, a further Committee (the Parker Committee) was appointed later in November to enquire into those techniques . Following tl :e report of the Parker Committee, the Prime Minister announced that the Government had decided that the techniques would not be used in future as an aid to interrogation .
- 35 -
They aubmitted that where a specific complaint was made against a member of the security forces, whether the army or the police, of conduct which might amount to a criminal offence, this was a matter which fell to be investigated by the civil authorities . Investigations were made by police officers under the authority of the Chief Constable . The reports of such investigations were then submitted to authorities outside the police force ; before direct rule, it was the practice for them to be submitted to the Chief Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland who in turn submitted them to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland ; since 31 March 1972 they had been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions . It was for the latter authorities to decide whether or not there was to be a prosecution . The . Army authorities co-operated to the full in all such investigations - for example, by making available to the police any military evidence - but where the allegation was of a criminal offence, the investigations and the decision on prosecution were a civil matter . It was further stated that a Commanding Officer of a military unit might impose a disciplinary penalty should he consider that a soldier's misbehaviour, though not amounting to an offence againet the criminal law, was a breach of army discipline . There was also a procedure, under eection 13 of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) whereby the Chief Constable was required to make an enquiry of complaints against members of the R .U .C . If it appeared that a criminal offence might have been committed, the decision whether to prosecute wae now that of the Director of Public Prosecutions . The Government explained that the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions was created in March 1972 . A copy of the Order by which the Office was established waa annexed to the Government's Counter-Memorial . The Order alao set out the functions of the Director . The Director was responsible for the performance of his functions to the Attorney-General only . A copy of the Attorney-General's directions to the Director of Public Prosecutions was also annexed . They submitted that it did not follow from a complaint that there must be a prosecution . The cause of justice was not served by prosecuting where there was no reliable or adequate evidence . One essential was sufficient evidence of the identity of the alleged wrongdoer ; it was one thing to establish the probability that a complaint of ill-treatment was justified, but quite .another thing to establish with the necessary degree of proof that a particular person was responsible . The Commission was also well aware, it was said, that allegations of ill-treatment may be distorted, exaggerated or manufactured for political purposes (th e Greek Caee, Vol . II, Part 1, p . 16) . Such a propaganda campaign, multiplying complaints and exaggerating injuries, was a marked 'eature of the IRA's efforts to discredit the securit y
f'orces . Some injuries might have been self-inflicted, other s
- 36-
had been the result of violent resistance to arrest or aggression by an arrested person while in cuetody . Whether or not i t was evidence of the IRA's campaign to discredit the security forces in Northern Ireland, at least 24 complainants had not co-operated in the investigation of their complaints and, in at least 13 instances, the complaint had been withdrawn . It was further said that up to 30 November 1973, the Director of Public Prosecutions had considered 576 cases of alleged assault by the seourity forces and prosecutions had been directed in 77 cases ( of which 25 related to persons in cuetody) . The Director had declined to prosecute in a number of cases because there was no evidence of injury or such evidence aa there was, was of a trivial injury . The number of prosecutions directed was over 12% of the number of cases referred to the Director, whereas in England and Wales in 1972, 2,114 cases alleging criminal offences by police officers were referred to the Director of Public Proaecutione who advised proceedings in 49 cases - 2 .5% of the cases referred to him .
ThÃ© respondent Government submitted in conclusion that even were there to be a question as to an administrative practice of ill-treatment, this evidence as to their actions t o prohibit and prevent ill-treatment rebutted the applicants' allegations in their observations of such a practice and, further, that even were these allegations to be substantiated, they did not suffice to establish such a practice . The Government did not admit these allegations and reserved their position with regard thereto . C.
Submissions
of the applicants as to the lÃ©gal issues
In their submissions at the admissibility stage, the applicants argued that they were entitled to raise the issue of the compatibility with the Convention of the alleged administrative practice and denied that they were, as suggested by the respondent Government, raising two separate and distinct issuee before the Comrnissior ., namely the question of violation of the applicants' individual rights and an in abstracto or general claim . They sought to put in issue the existence of an administrative practice of turture, inhuman and degrading treatmerrt only in relation to their claim that the direct application to each of them of this practice had violated their rights under Art . 3 . In this connection, the applicants also referred to the Commission's decision on admissibility of 16 December 197 2 in application No . 5155/71 (Kjeldsen v . Denmark) where a complaint concerning legislation on compulsory sex education had been declared admissible although the legislation had not yet been applied to the particular applicants or their daughter . In the applicants' view this was, in a technica l a complaint about a future violation, and they argued that in this respect no distinction should be made between legislation and administrative practices .
- 37 -
The applicants further argued that the competence of a State Party to the Convention to raise an issue of the compatibility of .legislative measures and administrative practices could not detract from the power of an individual applicant'under Art . 25to raise the issue of an administrative practice which directly affected him as a victim . The distinction under the Convention between the powers of a
State and an individual would still be maintained because an individual application was subject to the requirement under Art . 25 and Art . 27 . In their written observations on the merits, th e applicants made no further submissions in this respect .Intheirl of14Augst973,heaplicnt s maintained that the respondent Government had advanced no new argument against the right of an applicant under Art . 25 to plead the existence of such an administrative practice, except to state that it would prove burdensome for the High Contracting Party against whom the complaint has been lodged . This was a reply to the statement in the Government's letter of 17 July that the decision on admissibility would have the effect inter alia that the scope of the investigation by the Commission at the subsequent stages would not be confine d to the alleged violations of Art . 3 of which the applicants complained, but would necessitate the investigation of a considerable number of other incidents on which the applicants sought to rely as showing an administrative practice of ill-treatment . The applicants submitted that the actions
-
or non-actio n
of the respondent Government in dealing with complaints against the security forces, in conjunction with its persistent refusal to accept that there was any substantial basis for suc h complaints, amounted to the official tolerance of ill-treatment required by the Commission's ur spru ence as evidence of an administrative practice . It was not incumbent upon them to prove that the respondent Government actively encouraged the conduct of which the applicants complained . "By official tolerance is meant that, though acts of torture or i-treatment are plainly illegal, they are tolerated in the sense that the superiors of those immediately responsible though cognisant of such acts, take no a_t :on to punish them or prevent their repetition ; or that higher authority, in face of numerous allegations, .manifests indifference by refusing any adequate investigations of their truth or falsity, or that in judicial proceedings, a fair hearing o f
such complaints is denied . " They submitted that such failure to punish and official indifference had been proved in the present case .
- 38 -
With reference to the second requirement for proving the existence of an administrative practice, the repetition of acts of torture, the applicants referred to th e oL_mmi9sion's finding that "it would be unreasonable and again defeat the purpose of Article 3 to maintain that an administrative practice is not established unless and until every political detainee, or at least a majority, are subjected to torture or ill-treatment . . . By re etition of accs is meant a substantial number of acts of tor ure or i- reatmen t which are the expression of a general situation" . The Greek Case, Yearbook 12, Part 2, p . 195 . The 6pplicants concluded that the evidence submitted by them proved beyond reasonable doubt that persons suspected of terrorist offences or detained for political purposes in Northern Ireland were being subjected to a continuing administrative practice of torture and other ill-treatment at the hande of the security forces . This torture and ill-treatment was part of the pattern of "interrogation in depth" practised by the respondent Government, as well as being ueed in some instances as a means of summary punishment by the military . D.
Submissions of the respondent Government ega issue s
as to the
The Government recalled that, at the admissibility stage, they submitted that it was not open to an applicant under Article 25 to raise the issue of an administrative practice, as such . They maintained their submission on that issue as a matter of substance and summarised their position as follows : "(a) It under Article to examine in conformity provisions of
is well established that, in an applicatio n 25, the Commission is not competent abstracto the question of the o!'- mÃ¢eetic legislation with the the Convention .
(b) It is submitted the same applies equally, if not a fortiori, to the,question of the conformit y o an a eged practice with the provisions of the Convention . (c) In the case of a statute, the function of the Commission, as of the Court, is to give a decision "on the specific case of the application of such an Act to the applicant and to the extent to which the latter would, as a result, be prevented from exercising one of the rights guaranteed by the Convention" (Yearbook 5 at 334-336) .
- 39 -
(d) An administrative practice is a series of deeds or acts, and the application of the principle set out in sub-paragraph (c) above to an alleged administrative practice is such that the matter which falls for decision is the particular deed or act affecting the applicant which is alleged to be part of the series . With that particular decision, the function of the Commission is fulfilled ; it has no function to examine whether the particular deed or act forms part of a series ; to do so would be to examine matter s
which go beyond the instance of which the applicant claims to be a victim . Such an extensive examination would be to 'examine whether or not there has been a violation of the rights unde r the Convention of any other individuals', a e nexamitowhc,neprstca,h Commission has decided it cannot undertake . (Seeparsgraph 2, p . 26 of the Decision on Admissibility) (1) . This is particularly the case where, as in the present applications, the asserted practice is sought to be inferred from what is alleged to have happened to persons other than the particular applicant in each application .
(e) Nor, it is submitted, could the Commiseion pronounce upon a practice alleged to be evidenced by a series of acts not affecting the applicant since to do so would constitute a pronouncement in abstracto on the conformity of the alleged practice with the Convention . " The Government further observed that once a specific act (whether or not it was alleged to form part of an administrative practice) had been committed and had affected the particular applicant, the issue, so far as the Convention was concerned, was whether that act was a violation of the Convention . The question whether or not the act also'formed part of an administrative practice was, according to the Government, not only not an issue for determination under the the Convention, but it was irrelevant . Moreover, they .aubmitted that it was necessary to bear in mind the fundamental difference between the nature of a complaint under Article .24 and the nature of a complaint under Article 25 . A complaint under Article 25 must be made by (or on behalf of) an individual, andit s object was to seek redress for what had been done to that individual . A complaint under Article 24 need not be made on behalf of an individual, and its object wasnot merely to seek redress for what has been done but rather, as was state d
in the Pfunders Case : Austria v . Italy (Yearbook 4,â¢pp . 139, 142), to report t~o FiÃ© CÃ´mmission bre acF ot the public order .o f Europe . The Government concluded that a complaint under Article 24 was therefore affected by the existence :of-a n
(1) Collection of decisions, Vol . 43, p . 146 .
- 40 -
administrative practice in a way in which a complaint under Article 25 was not, and the principle that, in a case of a complaint under Article 24, the existence of an administrative practice might exclude the exhaustion of domestic remedies required by Article 26 could not be applied by similar reasoning to the case of a complaint under Article 25 . The Government emphasised that the administrative practice alleged by the applicants to the greater part referred to a period of intense and violent terrorism within Northern Ireland . They also noted that the applicants instanced a number of allegations made in respect of other individuals as purported examples of what were alleged as instances of an administrative practice . The applications referred to four specific instances which occurred within the month of April 1972 . Nevertheless, the applicants sought in effect to put in issue any and every allegation against the security forces over the whole period . The Government claimed that, whether or not any of the seven applicants was subjected to treatment which constituted a violation of Art . 3, could be determined by an enquiry into those four specific instances . An enquiry beyond those four specific instances was irrelevant to the question whethe r or not such treatment was suffered by tne individual applicant, and would involve an examination of "whether or not ther e has been a violation of the rights under the Convention" of other individuals - an examination which the Commiss :.on could not, as was stated in the decision on admissibility, undertake . A State Party was not to be required to give an answer t o the allegations made with regard to an alleGed administrative practice at the suit of a particular individual, but its answer was to be confined to the specific facts alleged to have occurred in respect of that individual . The Government submitted that for these reasons any further enquiry, in any of the present seven applications, into an alleged administrative practice of ill-treatment was both incompatible with the Convention and irrelevant . They further submitted that, for the reasons set out in the Agent's letters to the Secretary of tne Commission o f 17 July and 8 October 1973, a State Party should not be required to "give an account of itself on issues of merits" with regard to an alleged administrative practice in violation of Art . 3 in connection with the merits of any of the seven instant cases, or with regard to allegations of violations of Art . 3 in respect of any person other than the applicant in each of the seven cases . III .
SUBMISSIONS AS TO WHETHER THE APPLICAtlTS HAD COMPLIED WITH THE OBLIGATION TO EXHAUST DU?!E5TIC REMEDIES LAID THE C014VEIJTIO N Submissions
of the applicant s
At the hearing on admissibility, the applicants submitted that Art . 26 did not only in the present case where p ri ~m~~a facie ~ ~ evidence of ari administrative practice in viciation o t~ h e
41 -
Convention had been produced . In the alternative, the applicants argued that no adequate or effective remedies were available to them under the law of Northern Ireland in view of the relief they sought from the Commission and of the particular circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland (1) . In their written observations on the merits, they did not comment further on this question . They submitted, however, that harassment formed part of the alleged administrative practice and that some of the applicants had themselves been subjected to it . In the letter of 14 August 1973, the applicants state d that they did not accept the interpretation placed on the Commission's decision regarding admissibility by the respondent Government . The Government, they stated, continued to argue that the consequence of the decision on admissibility was to circumvent Art . 26 and Art . 27 (3) notwithstanding that there may exist adequate and effective domestic remediee which had not been exhausted . The applicants claimed that the Commission has constantly made clear and did so in its decision on admiesibility on the present applications that the existence of an administrative practice had the effect of rendering inadequate and ineffective domestic proceedings for remedies . Therefore, where, as in the present applications, rima facie evidÃ©nce of an administrative practice in contraventi on of the Convention was successfully made out at the admissibility stage, it was no bar to the applications being received that domestic remedies had not been exhausted . Submissions of the respondent Governmen t The Government recalled that, in its decision on admissibility, the Commission had joined to the merits any question relating to the remedies to be exhausted by each applicant as the alleged victim of specific acts in violation of Art . 3 a decision which implied that such allegations relating to specific acts were to be treated as admissible . The Gavernment had set out in section 1 of their observations on admissibility that domestic remedies available in respect of persons who were alleged to be the victims of ill-treatment, including illtreatment such as is alleged in these seven cases . They referred to these observations and summarised these remedies as follows : "(i) the right of the alleged victim to bring an action for damages against the person alleged to have inflicted the ill-treatment if that person is a membÃ©r of the military forces or the R .U .C ., the right of the alleged victim, even if he cannot further identify that person, to bring an action against the Crown or the Chief Constable respectively ;
(1) The applicants' submissions in this respect are summarised in the decision on admissibility, Collection of Decisions 43, pp . 142-145 .
- 42 -
(ii) so long as it appears on the balance of probabilities that the injuries are the result of a criminal act, the right to bring an action for the payment of compensation under the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, even if it is not possible to identify the wrongdoer ;
(iii) the prosecution of the alleged wrongdoer for one or more criminal offences depending on the seriousness of the matter ; (iv) the institution of complaincs for the purposes of disciplinary proceedings under the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 or, as the case may be, the Army Act, 1955 . "
They recalled that a prosecution was instituted against Detective Constables M . and B . and Private C . in respect of allegations arising out of the interrogation of MM . Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy, at the conclusion of which the three accused were acquitted by the jury . They stressed that a jury was composed of independent members of the public who deliberated on their verdict in secret and whose reasons were not disclosed to the Crown or anyone else . The Government stated that investigations were made into the complaints of MM . Kelly, Kearns and Carlin, but insufficient evidence was discovered to institute criminal proceedings . 'fhe law of Northern Ireland required that in criminal proceedings the guilt of a specific accused pereon be proved beyond all reasonable doubt . MM . Kelly and Carlin had refused to see the investigating officer and Mr . Kearns had refused to tell the investigating officer anything about his complaint . An investigation into the allegations made by Mr . McBride was still proceeding but he too, had failed to lend his co-operation to that investigation . The Government stated that none of the applicants Kelly, Kearns, Carlin or McBride had instituted civil proceedings for damages or proceedings for compensation in respect of their respective allegations . The applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy had issued writs in the High Court for damages o n 16 May 1972 . No action had been taken since . The fact that Detective Constables M . and B . and Private C . were acquitte d in criminal proceedings,did not, in the Government's submission, bar civil procecdings, including civil proceedings against the Chief Constable or the Crown . In civil proceedings, the standard of proof required would be the lower one of proof on the balance of probabilities . It was submitted that the domestic remedies available t o the seven applicants were sufficient and effective . No r .idcncn had been adduced of any administrative practice whic h .
- bi -
inhibited recourse to civil or other remedies, or which rendered them insufficient as remedies for the specific violations alleged . Accordingly, there would be no reason why the seven applicants should not have recourse to their civil remedies in respect of their allegations of ill-treatment and, it was submitted, their failure to do so rendered eac h of the seven applications inadmissible under Art . 26 . The Government accordingly requested the Commission to reject these eeven applications under Art . 27 (3) of the Convention . The Government also submitted that the fact that an adminietrative practice was alleged could not absolve the applicants from complying with the domestic remedies rule in Art . 26 . With reference to the alle g ation of administrative practice in relation to the efficiency of remedies, the Government submitted that the principal domestic remed y was the civil action for damages . Arieiny out of complaints against the security forces there had been some 167 civil cases . Fifty-three of theae had been settled or terminated in a financial award . As far as the seven applications were concerned, the Government submitted that it had been demonstrated in their observations firstly that they had taken steps to minimise t n e incidence of ill-treatment inescapable in a situatio n of terrorism, investigated complaints and prosecuted offenders wnere the evidence was available . The administrative practice, far from being a practice ot ill-treatment or torture, was and had been a practice to prevent it, and secondly tha t those who sought civil remedies in the courts could obtai n them . Not only was it not the case that there was disillusionment with legal remedies, but there was no administrative practice which inhibited their efficacy . They submitted that nothing in the cases of the eeven applicants indicated anything to the contrary . In the case of the applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy the State had performed its function by bringing a prosecution and by calling the available evidence â and it could not be suggested that this prosecution was not properly conducted . In the . case of the other four applicants, Kelly, Kearns, Carlin and McBride, an investigation was commenced into their complaints, b a t each refused to co-operate . ' In these circumstances, the G o vernment found that these applicants could not be heard to complain that no prosecution or disciplinary measures had resulted . Unlike other persons none of the applicants had then pursued the civil remedies open to him . Four, MM Kelly, Kearns, Carlin and McBride had not instituted proceedings . fnree, MM D onnelly, Bradley and Duffy had taken no furthe r
- 44 -
aotion after issuing their writs . The Government did not admit that they had been harassed because they had brought proceedings before the Commission . Even if the evidence be accepted at its face value these applicants had not been inhibited from proceeding with their applicatione to the Commission . It must aleo be remembered that each of these seven applications had been brought by a person who on his own admission had been involved in terrorist activities . The fact that these proceedings had been brought could not exempt the applicants from surveillance if in the judgement of che security forces the circumstances warranted it .
The Government therefore submitted that there was no administrative practice inhibiting recourse to domestic remedies in cases such as those of the seven applicants ; the practice and the examples of those who had sought domestic remedie s was to the contrary . So far as the applicants themselves were concerned, appropriate steps had been taken by the authorities or the applicants had deliberately refused to assist in, or themselves to take, the appropriate steps for the purpose of recourse to domestic remedies . They could not, therefore, be heard to complain of the inefficacy of domestic remedies .
IV .
CONCLUDING SUBMISSION S
A . Submissions of the aoolicant s Inconcl.usion the applicants submitted that the administrative practice in violation ofArt . 3 was one of "torture" both physical and psychological . In addition acts had been committed in the course of it which constituted inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . They submitted that the treatment received by the seven applicants had clearly amounted to torture and was contrary to Art . 3 . They submitted finally that the acts constituting the continuing administrâ¢ative practice of ill-treatment, which they had shown to include both repetition of acts, and official tolerance, were individually, violations of Art . 3 and the administrative practice as a whole was therefore incompatible with Arts . 1 and 3 of the Convention . Submissions of the respondent Governmen t The respondent Government submitted in conclusion firstly that the seven applications should be treated as separate individual applications raising only the issue whether the applicants had suffered ill-treatment contrary to Art . 3 .
The Commission could not consider whether the treatment ;lleged was part of an administrative practice since this would require a consideration of the cases of other individual s
-a5-
not parties to the Application and would amount to an enquiry into a general issue which would be irrelevant to the issue of whether the particular individual was a victim of a vlolation of the Convention . They submitted that there was no evidence of any administrative practice in violation oC Art . 3 or such as to inhibit recourse to domestic remedies . The applicants had deliberately refrained from having recourse to remedies which were effective and adequate . They submitted that each of the applications should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies and that the allegations of a violation of Art . 3 in each case were ill-founded and should be dismissed . ' FINAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES O N THE MERIT S I .
SUBMISSIONS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WERE SUB E T A LATIO F A T . 3
A.
Submissions of the applicant s
The applicants submitted that it was established beyond any doubt from the uncontradicted evidence of the applicants themselves and from the medical evidence that the applicants Donnell , Bradle and Duffy had been subjected to vicious an d rutal assauZts 6y memDers of the security forces in clear violation of Art . 3 . They sÃ»bmitted that the evidence given by Mr Carlin was to some extent corroborated by medical and other eviÃ¢ence . They put forward a number of criticisms of the police evidence and submitted that it was proved that he had suffered treatment in violation of Art . 3 at both police station "A" and the police holding centre .
They further submitted that in the case of the applicant McBride it was established that he had been deliberately assaulted by police officers as he had alleged and that these assaults in all the circumstances constituted violations of Art . 3 . Finally, in relation to the applicants Kelly and Kearns , the applicants submitted that in the light of the medical evidence it was established that the applicant Ke11 ha d been subjected to treatment in violation of Art . 3,Y and that the medical evidence in relation to the applicant Kearns clearly testified to assaults and injuries inflicted at some time whilst he was in custody . They submitted that on the medical a n d other evidence the probabilities were in favour of each of the applicants having been given a drug subsequent to arrest . They concluded that they had each been subjected â¢.o b - ating and humiliations by soldiers and police, on arrest and at the police station and administered a drug without their consent and also submitted that each of them w as a viccim of violations of Art . 3 of the Convention .
-4G-
Submissions of the respondent Governmen t The respondent Government accepted that the applicants Donnell , Bradley and Duffy had been physically assaulted and sustained injuries at the relevant time, although they disputed certain details of their accounts . They accepted that the applicant Carlin appeared to have sustained a very minor injury to his arm at police station "A" but submitted that his allegations of ill-treatment there were inconsistent with medical and other evidence and that the most probable explanation of the injury to his arm was that it had occurred when he had shown reluctance to climb the stairs and been pushed up the stairs by the arm . They further accepted that Mr Carlin had sustained superficial scratches to his hands and elbow and some bruising to his back at their holding centre but submitted that Mr Carlin's allegations of serious assaulte and ill-treatment over a prolonged period ther e could not be reconciled with the trivial extent of the injuries found or witn other evidence . They submitted that in view of Mr Carlin's unsatisfactory and untruthful evidence irr relation to his treatment at "A", it must be open to considerable doubt when and how Mr Carlin had sustained these injuries . The respondent Government accepted that the applicant McBride received two black eyes and some swelling of the left uppÃ©r Iip while in police custody but submitted that having regard to their minor nature these injuries would not constitute treatment in breach of Art . 3 of the Convention . In relation to the applicants Kelly and Kearns , the respondent Government submitted that bÃ´iii applicants had been shown at their trials to be untruthful witnesses and prepared to tell lies to discredit the security forces . They submitted that the injuries found on both of them were consistent with rough handling during their arrest and the journey to the police station . There was no evidence whatever to support an allegation that Mr Kelly had been administered any drug while in custody and Mr Kearns' allegations to this effect were untrue and contradicted by the expert evidence .
II . SUBMISSIONS ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICANTS WER E
Submissions of the applicant s The applicants referred to their initial observations on the merits and submitted that since at least 9 August 197 1 there had existed in Northern Ireland a continuing administrative practice encouraging or tolerating treatment contrary t o Art . 3 nf the Convention . They submitted tha : proof of the .- :r.~-sary repetition of acts and official tolerance had bee n
- 117 -
offered by them at two levels, namely on a general level in the form of statements and other material and secondly the evidence concerning the treatment of the applicants themselves . In addition to the material already referred to in their initial observations the applicants referred to figures given in various answers to Parliamentary Questions, setting out certain details of complaints against members of the security forces in Northern Ireland . These indicated inter alia that 3,759 complaints had been recorded against members of th e R .U .C . between enactment of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 and April 1975, of which 32 had resulted in prosecutions an d 23 in disciplinary proceedings . A total of 10 policemÃ©n had been convicted after prosecution, of whom 6 had been convicted of assault . Other figures indicated that 798 actions had been commenced between 9 August 1971 and 30 September 1975 alleging assault by members of the security forces . Eleven cases had gone trial, 9 having been dismissed and judgement having been given for the claimant in two . 220 cases ha d been settled and 517 were still outstanding . In the 222 cases disposed of in favour of the claimant, 1 420,823â¢48 had been paid in compensation . They further indicated that a total of 12,123 complaints had been made against the R .U .C . and army since 1 January 1971 . They submitted that it was clearly established that there had been constant repetition of acts in violation of Art . 3 in Northern Ireland and that neither criminal prosecution nor disciplinary proceedings could be seen as having any substantial deterrent effect . Toleration of the acts in question was shown in the present cases by the fact that the i mmediate superiors of those actually responsible had taken no action to punish them or prevent the repetition of such acts by more effective eupervision and by inadequate investigation of allegations of ill-treatment . The experiences of the aeven individual applicant s in their submission demonstrated the existence of the alleged practice . The incidents had occurred in widely separated geographical regions in both police and army posts or stations, and taken together were evidence of a general feeling on the part of the security forcesthai they could act with impunity wnen dealing with those designated as suspected terrorists . The vague, evasive and sometimes fabricated evidence offered by the witnesses of the respondent Government indicated also the existence of a pracbice of concealment and deception on the part of the security forces . None of the respondent Government's witnesses had admitted seeing or participatin g in any conduct which might explain the injuries found on the applicants . It was not R radl?y and Duffy in ru~, t ody at the tnat no one tnere
in dispute that the applicants, Donnel lY , had received very serious i i juries while military post and it was inconceivable should have noticed their condition .
- 48-
Nevertheless, the commanding officer of the post had said that he had received no reports of any kind indicating that ill-treatment might be occurring and none of his soldiers had apparently admitted participating in or witnessing any assault, when interviewed later by the investigating officer . In connection with these cases the applicants also referred to evidence to the effect that the three applicants would have been seen by many soldiers during their period in custod y in the military post and also by a number of policemen who subsequently took statements from them . They also referred to evidence given by the applicants themselves to the effect that they had been seen by one or more army officers whils t in the post . They submitted that the failure of the respondent Government to offer any proof to explain the total silenc e of those present at the relevant times, and the Cailure to institute any disciplinary proceedings was evidence to deliberate toleration and de facto encouragement of an administrative practice of torture and other ill-treatment of suspected terrorists . The applicants also observed in relation to the applicant McBride that .no policemen present during his period in custody aL Eh-e- police station admitted having seen any injuries . Despite the fact that individual soldiers and policemen were theoretically under a duty to report any . incidents of possible ill-treatment, it was clear that in practice this duty was ignored . Lack of supervision and concern on the part of the superior officers also contributed to the continuation of the systematic ill-treatment of suspects . With reference to the case of Mr Carlin, thÃ© applicants suggested that there was considerable con-IÃ»siÃ´n as to who was in charge of .the police holding centre and its personnel o r nady-tobsiandth rlyefctdpo control by superior officers over activities in an interrogation centre of such importance . They observed that the Duty Sergeant at the relevant time had said that he did not know who was present and also suggested that there appeared to be inadequate control over the activities of Special Branch officers there . They further suggested that the evidenc e
in the cases of MM Kearns and Kell showed that Special Branch officers were outside t e normal chain of command within a police station . The applicants suggested that if a complaint was made, this did not appear to be a subject of great concern to the security forces at any level . Even where investigating officers concluded that eome injuries to suspects must have been sustained in custody, there was no evidence that any disciplinary enquiries or other action was taken by the superior officers concerned .
They submitted that the machinery for investigating complaints against the police or army was totally inadequate, as was demonstrated by the investigations carried out by th e
- 49 -
three investigating officers who had given evidence . The conclusion of the officer investigating MMKe11y and Kearns' complaints, that he had found "no evidence" that they had been ill-treated was patently not true in view of the medical evidence and his treatment of the drugs' issue had also been unsatisfactory . The officer investigating Mr McBride's complaint had recommendedthat no action be taken after he had pled guilty to certain charges without raising his allegations . He had suggested that he could have sustained the injuries b y etumbling against a door but had refused to offer any opinion as to whether it was a reasonable inference that they had been inflicted by police officers . The investigation carried oLit into Mr Carlin's allegations appeared from the evidence of the investigating officer himself to have been incompleteand biased . He had consulted no records to ascertain which police or military personnel were present at the holding centre but had relied on information given by police officers . He had not interviewed or taken a statement from one of the police officers who had been in contact with Mr Carlin, had not examined the centre and had accepted without question the unsupported story of a police officer having~found a staple in Mr Carlin's cell . Although he had grudgingly admitted that Mr Carlin had sustained bruising to his back at the centre, he had not recommended any further action . Even having seen Mr Carlin's written statements in evidence before the Commission, he had concluded that there was no room for any further investigation of the conclusions Iie had reached .
Bias against complainants and in favour of any explanation that exculpated the security forces, no matter how improbable, was evidenced by these investigations . The applicants concluded that the failure of complainants to co-operate .would inhibit enquiries but submitted that feilure to co-operate because of disbelief in the impartiality of the investigations was understandable in the circumstances . The applicants further submitted that the complete separation of army and police investigating procedures, as appeared from the investigations in the Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy, Kearns and Kelly cases, also contributed to the inadequacies of the syetem and might further encourage collusion on the part of military personnel, who were not interviewed by police . One means of ensuring that ill-treatment would not be continued was to prosecute those responsible . In the light of the calibre of the investigations the lack of prosecution was not, however, surprising . In some cases it would be impossible to obtain sufficient identification for a criminal proeecution, but it must be queried whether facilities for the identification of police or army personnel were normall y made available to complainants . Further, even the mos t
- 50-
determined investigator might be frustrated through lack of adequate records, fabrication of stories or collusion amongst soldiers or police involved . The difficulties would however be compounded if the investigation was reluctant and lacked thoroughness . In the light of the small number o f prosecutions as compared to complaints, it could not be suggested that prosecutions were an adequate deterrent to the continuance of widespread ill-treatment of suspects . Even where prosecutions were not instituted, disciplinary proceedings should, the applicants submitted, be availabl e as a check on misbehaviour . However, possible disciplinary action appeared to be of little or no concern to the investigating officers, as did large issues such as effective supervision over the treatment of prisoners . No disciplinary action of any kind had been taken in the present seven cases . Sumpiing up, the applicants submitted that the evidence in the seven cases demonstrated the existence of an administrative practice in violation of Art . 3 in that : the investigations had been inadequate and biased ; there was totally ineffective supervision over the treatment of suspects ; even in the blatant cases of Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy there was no evidence that any soldier or policeman had raised any question about the manner in which they were being ill-treated ; toleration of brutality on the part of the higher officers of the army and R .U .C . was shown by the presence of the officer in charge of the team investigating the explosion during the first illtreatment of Mr McBride and by allegations of Bradley and Duffy that an army officer had appeared to know of their ill-treatment ; and, finally, the failure to institute criminal or disciplinary proceedings was evidence tha t they could not and did not function as effective deterrents . The applicants referred to the respondent Government's submission that before a State could be held responsible for an administrative practice it was necessary for the evidence to establish that such a practice had been tolerated at the level of the State itself . They observed that no authority was given for this proposition and submitted that in accordance with the Commission's previous jurisprudence it was only necessary for them to show that the ill-treatment was tolerated in the sense that the superiors of those immediately responsible took no adequate action to punish them or prevent the repetition of such acts, and tha t higher authorities had shown indifference by refusing any adequate enquiry or investigation or by not taking any effective measures to ensure the cessation of the practice . The applicants referred to their initial observations and emohasised that it was not incumbent on them to prove that the alleged practice was encouraged or actively approved by the highest authorities . They accepted tha t
- 51 -
it might well be that at the highest levels of the State and possibly at the level of the highest police and military authorities there was no desire that ill-treatment of suspects should take place . They submitted, however, that it was abundantly clear that ill-treatment did occur and that there must be a middle level of the chain of command which tolerated and had knowledge of it . "Official tolerance" could also , in accordance with the C o mmission's jurisprudence, be proven by indifference on the part of the Governmental authorities to repeated allegations cf torture and euch indifference was, they submitted, evident at the times relevant to the present application . The administrative practice of which the applicants alleged they had been victims was not, as the respondent Government had submitted, limited to one of ill-treatment in connection with interrogation . It included ill-treatment for other purposes, such :.s summary punishment .
B.
Submissions of the respondent Governmen t
The respondent Government recalled their previous submissions that i t was not open to the applicants to raise the issue of an administrative practice i n their applications and stated that they did not propose to make observations in relation to allegatio ri s of ill-treatment made in respect of persons other than the applicants .
If, however, the Commission were to give consideration to a question whether there was evidence of any administrative practice affecting the applicants, they would make certain comments . In the firat place they submitted that where it was alleged that there was an administrative practice for which the State was to be held .-espor.sible, it was necessary for the evidence to establish that an administrative practice of illegality or violation of the Convention had been authorised or tolerated at the level of the State itself, namely at the level of the Executive or an agency thereof epecifically entrusted by it wi2h the authority to order or promote the practice in question . There was no such evidence in the present case and the evidence sought and taken by the Delegates had not dealt with matters which had any bearing on these issues which might be relevant at any such .eve1 . Secondly, if the Cortmission were to examine the question of an administrative practi_e at some other level, the evidence did not disclose any adminis :ra :ive practice of ill-treatment . The respondent Government referred to various passages in the application and the applicants' pleadings and submitted that the case they had made was that there had been a n
administra t ive practice o_ ill-treatment before or during intarrogation in order tc c^ :a'_n confessions or information .
- 52 -
They submitted, however, that the evidence had established that insofar as the applicants had received some injuries, these had not been sustained in consequence of such a practice . In this respect they submitted that it was clear that the assaults on the applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy were not tolerated by the superiors of those who carried them out because there was an immediate police investigation and three of the persons accused by the applicants ha d been prosecuted . Each of them had also received substantial compensation which he had accepted in full satisfaction of his claim of his civil action . They also submitted that the evidence of MM Bradley and Duffy as to having been interviewed by an officer at the post was unreliable for a number of reasons and should not be accepted . They drew attention to the evidence of the officer in charge of the post to the effect that he had not known what was going on . With reference to the applicants' comments on the fac t that no disciplinary action had taken place, the respondent Government observed that the three persons accused had instead been subjected to criminal prosecution . They suggested that it was a basic principle of all system s of law that if persons were prosecuted on a criminal charge and acquitted, it was not appropriate that they would be charged again on the same facts under some other system of discipline . They submitted that in all the circumstances it was established that they had not been victims of an administrative practice . The respondent Government again drew attention to the allegedly unreliable nature of the evidence given by Mr Carlin as to his alleged ill-treatment at the holding centre . They submitted that if, however, Mr Carlin had received any ill-treatment there the evidence of the officer with overall responsibility for the centre clearly established that there was no official tolerance . They drew attention to the terms of the relevant standing orders and to the said officer's evidence as to his system of inspection visits and to the evidence as to the syste m of medical examinations on arrival and departure which, they submitted, was designed to, reduce the chance of illtreatment occurring . The fact that there might be one lapse in the system did not amount to an administrative practice, and the evidence, they submitted, established that there had not been an administrative practice at the holding centre . They submitted that the evidence established that Mr McBride had admitted his involvement in the matters in connection with which he was questioned as P. result of proper and patient police questioning . The minor injur'-es h e had sustained had not, they submitted, been inflicted for the purpose of compelling him to make a confession bu t it might be that a police officer had lost his temper fo r
- 53-
a moment as a reaction to the crime in which Mr McBride had been implicated . Mr McBride had received compensation in settlement of his domestic claim . The respondent Government submitted that he had not been the victim of a n administrative practice as alleged by the applicants . With regard to the applicants Kelly and Kearns the respondent Government submitted that it was hardly surprising that they had received some bruises given the circumstances of their arrest . They submitted that it was clear tha t they had not received their minor in .iuries in consequence of an administrative practice, particularly as they had been caught in circumstances which proved their guilt and i t was not, therefore, necessary to obtain confessions in order to eqtablish their criminal liability .
A further consideration disproving the existence o f an administrative practice was, in the respondent Government's eubmission, the fact that the applicants' complaints ha d been thoroughly and carefully investigated by police officers, who had spent many hours on their investigations at a time when the police had been heavily engaged in combatting terrorism . They drew attention to the fact chat onl y MM Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy had co-operated and to the resulting prosecution in their case and the conclusions of the investigating officers in the other cases . They submitted that it was unreasonable and inequitable fo r MM Kearns, Kelly, Carlin and McBride to refuse co-operation with the investigating officers ani then to criticise the manner in which they had carried out their investigations and their conclusions . With reference to the detailed crit'ic'sms of the investigations made by the applicants, the respondent Government euggested that the conclusion of the relevant investigating officer that he had found no evidence tha t any member of the security forces had been guilty of assaulting MM Kelly and Kearns was justified on the basis of the prison doctor's medical findings . With reference to thÃ© applicants' critidsm of his treatment of the drugs issue, they note d that he had received no assistance from MM Kelly and Kearns and that he had sought information from ihe Forensic Science Laboratory in Belfast . They observed that the conclusion of the officer investigating Mr McBride's ecmplaint had been .'-ce custody . He his black eyes had been sustained in po' had only suggested the possibility of h's falling agains t a door in cross-examination, not in his report . They observed that the ihvestigation of M.r ^ .arlÂ±n's complaint had been handicapped because on the basis c' the complaint the investigating officer had received, t,e ?'d rot know which officers Mr Carlin alleged had ill-crea ;ed hin . The respondent Government also submitted that as well as ueing concerned to investigate a'_legacians of ill-treatment, tÃ¼^ police authorities were also concerned to improve the system of supervision of persons in cus :cay . In this respect
they drew attention to evidence by two police witnesses describing the introduction of a detailed log of the movements of every prisoner in custody in a police station and of contacts between prisoner and police officers, and the introduction of medical examinations of prisoners on arrival at and departure from police stations . Reference was also made to evidence as to improvements in the supervision of police holding centres .
Finally, the respondent Government referred to the availability to the applicants of adequate and effective domestic remedies as relevant in this context . III . SUBMISSIONS AS TO THE ISSUES UNDER ART .26 INCLUDING THE E A TO
Submissions of the applicant s In their final written observations the applicants observed that the issues arising un er rt . 26 were defined in the Decision on Admissibility where the Commission had joined to the merits " . . . any question relating to the remedies to be exhausted by each applicant as the alleged victim of specific acts, as distinct from an administrative practice, in violation of Art . 3"â¢ They observed tha t the relationship between domestic remedies and an administrative practice had already been explored in the submissions on admissibility and in the Commission's decision . The applicants observed that, where specific acts in violation of Art . 3 were proved to have occurred, distinct from an administrative practice, the Commission had held that compensation might be an effective remedy within the They submitted, however, that meaning of Arts . 13 and 26 . the right under Art . 13 to an effective remedy include d not only the theoretical availability of compensation but also complementary rights necessary to make the right to compensation effective in practice . Thus an individual should expect impartial machinery for the investigation of his complaint and should expect-not to be impeded, obstructed or harassed by the security forces he had complained against . He should expect that his claim would not be frustrated due to lack of co-operation by the security forces, by suppression of evidence or a conspiracy to deny his ill-treatment . The applicants referred to the allegations of harassment or intimidation, or the fear thereof, which had been made in the present applications and to evidence which had been given as to reprisals when complaints were made against the security forces and as to the prevalence of fear o f such reprisals in the minority community . They submitted '.hat. the general lack of confidence on the part of the minority community in legal remedies was also relevant .
- 55 -
They also submitted that the vast majority of c~mpensation awards in Northern Ireland were made not because of the compensation machinery which existed but in spite of it , rough the extra-legal form of ex gratia payments to complainants . Liability was rarely, if ever, admitted and claims for compensation did not normally reach court . They submitted that by means of ex gratia payments the respondent Gavernment sought to avoid any investigation into the larger issues of ill-treatment and that the monies paid were simply treated as a necessary cost of the respondent Government's policies in Northern Ireland . They referred to th e Commission's decision in Application No . 299/57 (Greece V . the United Kingdom, Yearbook Vol . II, p . 186) and observed that the Commission's jurisprudence made it clear that remedies which were strictly a matter of grace or executive discretion did not constitute adequate and effective remedies requiring to be exhausted under Art . 26 . They submitte d that the actual procedure for compensation was for complainants to depend on ex gratia payments since appeal to the courts might well be frustrated by the inherent bias of the syste m
in favour of the security forces . These payments should not be considered an adequate and effective remedy and the applicants should therefore be excused from fulfilling the normal requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies . The applicants submitted that even if compensation were taken as an adequate and effective remedy in the cases where it had been awarded, such settlements had no effect on the other applicants . They did not detract from the fear on the part of claimants in Northern Ireland about the consequences of taking proceedings against the security forces and with regard to the applicants whose claims had not been settled, their original position that remedie s
were inadequate and ineffective, as submitted in the original application, was maintained . The applicants observed that they had not in any event sought compensation as part of the relief they requested and submitted that the request for declarative relief was still properly before the Commission . Finally the applicants noted that the Commission had declared admissible the issue that the applicants were victims of an administrative practice in violation of Art . 3 of the Convention . They submitted that any decision as to the remaining i ssues arising under Art . 26 could have no effecc on the Commission's consideration of the applications insofar as they related to the iseue of an administrative practice . At the oral hearin the applicants developed their submissions furt e submitted that it was clear that the issue relating to domestic remedies which had been joined â¢.o the merits was contingent on administrative practice .'_hequstionfectivnsoradequcyfmsti c remedies only needed to be examined by the Commission if i t
- 56 -
found as a matter of fact that the applicants had not been victims of an administrative practice but had been the victims of specific violations oC Art . 3 . If an individual was a victim of an administrative practice, he did no t need to exhaust remedies, since they would necessarily be inadequate . It was no answer in a situation of administrative practice that compensation was available since the compensation machinery and normal legal machinery did not operate so a s to prevent the behaviour, but rather in a way incidental to it . An administrative practice, whether localised or broadly based, operated so as to make remedies ineffective and inadequate in protecting the rights under Art . 3 . A State could not pay for the right to torture or otherwise treat people contrary to Art . 3 . Under the Convention Art . 3 had a unique status and could not be derogated from and where there was an administrative practice in violation of it, it was not enough to ensure conformity with i :s special status for a Government to show that they nevertheless had a system of law allowing monetary compensation . They further submitted that the existence of an administrative practice demonstrated conclusively that the mere payment of compensation had not been an adequate or effective remedy and was not capable of being such a remedy by itself . Something further was required, which should ensure that the practice did not repeat itself . This might consist of administrative disciplinary action, further supervieion or prosecution of the actual torturer . If such action were taken in addition to the payment of compensation, the applicants would accept that this would be an adequate and effective remedy but there would then no longer be an administrative practice since the element of official tolerance would be absent . The existence of an administrative practice and the existence of adequate and effective remedies were actually inconsistent . If there were only isolated instances of ill-treatment, the applicants would accept that, as the respondent Government had contended, the State should be the first line of defence and compensation would be an adequat e and effective remedy . They referred, however, to the figures they had produced in relation to complaints against the security forces and actions arising out of such complaints and suggested that this had not,bccn thc case in ` :orthern Ireland . With reference to the issuc of domestic remedies which had been joined to the merits, the applicants further developed their submissions to the effect .that payments in settlemen t of domestic actions constituted ex gratia payments and were not effective or adequate remedi es . Th ey argued that in practice the existence of the right to claim damages provided monetary compensation but no judicial examination of wha t was going on . They observed that the settlement in the McBride case had been without admission of liability and contended that this was the normal practice . They suggested tnat in vi?w of the nature of the police evidence the applicant would have had difficulty proving his case in cour t
57 -
and submitted that his acceptance of the compensation should be seen in the context of that situation . They accepted that this consideration would apply less in the cases of the applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy but observed that the persons prosecuted had been acquitted . Whilst this would not necessarily preclude a successful civil action, it was relevant to it, although easier for these applicants to have proved their cases . The applicants accepted that they could have gone to court, although they suggested that this might have taken about two years . The applicants further submitted that there was nothing in the Commiesion's jurisprudence to prevent the applicants from requesting declarative rather than compensator y relief . By this they meant a declaration that they had each been victims of violations of Art . 3 which formed part of an administrative practice . Such a declaration would, they hoped, ensure that measures might be taken to ensure that there would be no continuation of the practice . A declaration could also be made in specific cases in the absence of a practice .
Submissione of the respondent Governmen t In their final written observations the respondent Government referred to, and ma ntaine , eir previous submission that in any application under Art . 25 of the Convention it was a requirement that the applicant should have exhausted the domestic remedies available, and that the relevance of an alleged administrative practice was confined to the question whether or not such remedies were effective . They recalled that in the Greek Case (Yearbook XII, p . 195) the Commiasion had observed that "the notion /Ef an administrative practice7 is closely linked wiEh the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies" . They submitted that, as the applicants had conceded, compensation was a domestic remedy within the meaning of Arts . 13 and 26 . In the cases where compensation had been paid, it was manifest that this remedy was available . Ther e was no question of "the theoretical availability of compensation" referred to by the applicants but of actual payments mad e and accepted in full discharge of the claims made by the applicants . With reference to the applicants' suggestion that payments in settlement were ex ratia payments and extralegal, the respondent Governmeitted that the situation in the present case was different from that in the Second Cyprus Case, which had been cited by the applicants . In Northern Ireland an action at law lay against the Crown or Chief Constable even in the absence of aridentifiable individual defendant whereas in the Second Cyprus Case the only recourse open to a claimant in such a s?tuation was to petition for compensation as of grace . There was no question cf payments made to the applicants in settlement of their legal claims being ex gratia payments .
- 58 -
With reference to the applicants' suggestion that it was necessary for applicants to settle cases rather than continue proceedings because of bias in favour of the security forces and rear of harassment, the respondent Government submitted that no evidence had been produced in relation to bias against the applicants . The evidence showed, on the contrary, that the system of the option of a judge or judge and jury negated any bias that might exist in a jury drawn from a community where sectarian prejudices existed . They also submitted that the judgement in the case of Moore v . Shillington provided cogent evidence to the contrary . The respondent Government did not accep t that there had been harassment of any claimant for compensation . Allegations in respect of MM Kearns and Kelly were show n to have been groundless and the record showed the .continued involvement of MM Duffy and Bradley in terrorist activities, which necessitated continued interest in them by the security forces . The respondent Government observed that none of the applicants Carlin, McBride, Kelly and Kearns had raised civil proceedings until 1974 . Compensation had been paid in a considerable number of cases in which the plaintiff complained of ill-treatment and there was no reason to believe that , if claims were validly made, compensation would not be paid in settlement or in consequence of a decision by the courts . The respondent Government also drew attention to the investigations which had been carried out into the applicants' complaints, and the prosecution in the Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy cases . They submitted that there was thus evidence that remedies, of a kind which the Commission had previously treated as effective, existed and that they had been successfully pursued in some cases and were available in the others . That the cases which had not been settled were in a less advanced state must to a considerable extent be attributed to the failure of the applicants to make claims earlier . There was no evidence of an administrative practice at any level which prevented the courts from administering justice and granting effective remedies within a reasonable time . The evidence showed on the contrary that they were working normally, save for some delay caused by the increase in business as a result of terrorism, and that they were unhindered by the Executive and unbiased . Remedies were equally effective and applicable whether the claim or the applicants was made in respect of specific allegations of ill-treatment or in respect of ill-treatment in the course of an administrative practice . The respondent Government therefore submitted tha t these remedies were, under Art . 25 and 26, a necessary prcrcquinite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commission . To the extent that the question of admissihility had bee n
- 59 -
joined to the merits and remained to be determined, they submitted that the examination of the merits disclosed that there were effective and adequate remedies and that all seven applications should be dismissed for failure to exhaust those remediee, or alternatively in the cases where compeneation had been paid, on the grounds that the applicants' claims had been satisfied and they could no longer clai m to be victims of a violation within the meaning of Art . 25 . In the further alternative it wae submitted that the Commiseion should nota that paymente had been made and accepted in full settlement of the claims and should conclud e that, having regard to the Convention as a whole and in particular Art . 13, the respondent Government had complied with its obligations under the Convention . So far as concerned the applicants whose claims were still pending, they submitted that if the Commission was not minded to determine each of the applications on the basis of a finding that there had been no violation of the Convention or on the basis that they should be rejected for non-exhaustion of remediee, the appropriate course would be to defer any finding pending the termination of the domestic proceedings .
At the oral hearin the respondent Government submitted that the evidence eaÃ´ Iiehed that domestic remedies in Northern Ireland had not been side-stepped or rendered ineffective . They submitted that the courts in Northern Ireland were totally independent of the Executive and were powerful, unbiased and just . The applicants' comments on "the inherent bias of the eyetem in favour of the security forcee" appeared to be an allegation that the courts ha d euch a bias . This allegation was unfounded . For six years in the race of the moat murderoue and vicious terrorist campaign eny European democracy had had to endure in recent time, which had included the murder and wounding of judge s in their homes, the courts had administered fair and impartial justice . The suggestion that the payments made to MM Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy and McBride were ex gratia, was unfounded . If they had wished to obtain a'declaration from the court tÃ´ the effect that they had been ill-treated, they could have done so . It would have been open to them to refuse the offers and go to court . Referring to the applicants' submission that the y were entitled to declarative relief, the respondent Government submitted that, in the context of an application unde r Art . 25 of the Convention, the obligation of the State was to safeguard the rights and freedoms under the Convention and if there was a violation, or series of violations, to make reparation . The function of the Commission as set out in Art . 19 was to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the State . The State was the first lire of defence . The Commission's function was to make sure that the State secured the rights or paid com,ensalior. . ?t wa s
- 60 -
not a tribunal or court to which persons went for some form of judgement . If, after carrying out an investigation under Art . 28 (a), the Commission concluded that there had bee n a violation of one of the substantive rights set out i n Arts . 2 to 12, but that the State had made good the violation by making restitutio in integrum , or, if that were not possible, repar e r~no breach by the State of its obligations under the Convention and no room for a declaration . Even if the State had been in overall breach of its obligations there was still not an area for declaration in the sense suggested by the applicants . The terms of Art . 3 2 made this clear . The respondent Government also referred to the Commission's decision in Application No . 5575/72 (Decisions and Reports I/44) . The suggestion that the respondent Government, by paying compensation were paying for torture completely misrepresented the facts and the concepts under the Convention , which were exemplified by the case cited and the facts of the present cases . The Commission was dealing with seven different and disparate cases . In a situation such as tha t in Northern Ireland there were bound to be cases where members of the security forces went beyond what was permissibl e and ill-treated people . Even if this happened a number of times this did not mean that one was in the area or practice but in the area of very human reaction which a State must take care to keep within strict limits, to stop so far as it could, and if it could not, to make reparation . Art . 26 was designed to fit into the pattern of the overall obligations of States in safeguarding rights and making reparation . It was in terms a procedural provision . The Commission was not to embark upon an investigation unless there had been an opportunity for the State to put the matter right . In the present cases there had been a doubt in the Commission's mind at the time of the admissibility decision whether adequate and effective remedies were available and the question had been joined to the merits . The Commission was now dealing with facts . Compensation had been paid in four cases, and accepted voluntarily as sufficient . In the cases of MM Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy it had included an exemplary sum . The State had made reparation as required by the Convention . The Commission was not instituted to provide something beyond reparation made by a State according to its law , a fortiori where it was voluntarily accepted by the applicants . It had thus been demonstrated that there were, and always had been remedies . Procedural decisions could not be allowed to determine matters of substance and the matter of substance here was the basic obligation of the State to secure rights or make reparation . The applicants had appenred to argue that because the Commission had decided that there was prima facie evidence of an administrative practice, then whatever view it came to about th e
- 61 -
existence of remedies, the procedural decision meant that the domestic remedies position was irrelevant if some kind of practice was established . They had appeared to adopt a formulary approach to proceedings before the Commission and to argue that questions relating to domestic remedies were irrelevant not because of what the facts showed but because of the formula used . The respondent Government rejected this approach . Even if the Commission concluded that at some level, middle or bottom, there had been some form of practice, there was no violation of the Convention in relation to the cases where compensation had been paid . Remedies had there been ahown to be adequate and effective and no procedural decision could interfere with that . If remedies were available and effective in relation to an applicant who was injured by a casual, deliberate act which was an isolated occurrence, they were equally available if he was injured as part of a practice . The issue of dÃ´mestic remedies was alive by virtue of the decision of the Commission to join it to the merits . It was open in relation to specific acts and was necessarily alive an d In the Creek open in relation to any alleged practice . Case it had been said that if there was an administrative practice, remedies might tend to be ineffective and sidestepped . It did not necessarily say that this was inevitable or certain . The consequence of the payments of compensation to the applicants were, in the respondent Government's submission, that they could no longer claim to be victims and there was therefore no longer an issue upon which the Commission was called to make a report under Art . 31 . The Commission should also take these four cases into account, together with the fact that compensation had now been paid in 287 cases, in relation to the other three cases and should give effect to its joinder of the Art . 26 issue to the merits and hold them to be inadmissible for non-exhaustion of remedies submitted that ine.TherspondtGvm general th e State's obligation to make reparation did not require it to deal with the culprit as well as the victim . It was not part of the reparation system for the State necessarily to gratify the victim's sense of revenge . The State's obligations were satisfied by .their making reparation and seeking to ensure that they continued to comply with their obligations . In any event, there had been a prosecution in three of the present cases . Thus even if there was an obligation on the State to take some further step, thi s had been discharged in these cases . The executive arm of the State could not itself procure a conviction . Insofar as the other applicants were concerned, they had refused to play any part in the process necessary to bring a pros^rution and the responde n t Government suhmitted that thcy therefore had no further obligations in that respect .
- 62 -
THE L THE PRESENT TASK OF THE COMMISSIO N The Commission recalls its decision of 5 April 1973 : (1) to declare admissible the issue whether the applicants were vlctims of an administrative practice in violation of Art . 3 of the Convention ; (2) to join to the merits any question relating to the remedies to e exhausted by each applican t as the alleged victim of specific acts, as distinct from such a practice . The facts have now been fully investigated both as regards the specific allegations of ill-treatment of the individual applicants, and as regards the remedies available to them . The proceedings have confirmed the factual connection between these issues . However, the issue relating to remedies must be decided as a preliminary t o any findings on the merits of the allegations of ill-treatment . In its examination of that preliminary issue the Commission makes no findings on the allegations of ill-treatment except insofar as they are undisputed . Procedurally, the issue relating to remedies (point (2) above), while joined to the merits, must still be considered as affecting the admissibility of the applications . This means that it falls even at the present stage to be decided by the Commission under Arts . 26 and 27 of the Convention rather than reported upon under Arts . 30 or 31 . In th e event of a finding of inadmissibility on this point, the question of applying Art . 29 to the part of the application already declared admissible (point (1) above) arises . The applicants have alleged that, following their arrest on various charges in April 1972, they were each subjected to treatment in violation of Art . 3 of the Conventio n by members of the security forces of the respondent Government and that this treatment formed part of a continuing administrative practice in violation of Art . 3 . They have submitted that insofar as they have been victims of the alleged administrative practice, the provisions of Art . 26 of the Convention requiring the exhaustion of domestic remedies do not apply as the existence of such a practice will of necessity render local remedies ineffective nr inadequate . They have also submitted that, even if they were not victims of an administrative practice, the remedies in Northern Ireland were not effective or adequate . The respondent Government has accepted that some of the "t pp1i^.ants were assaulted whilst in the custody of the security iorres and that others sustained injuries, although they hav e
-i -
disputed in whole or in part the particular allegations made by them . They have submitted that it is not open to an applicant under Art . 25 to raise the issue on an adminietrative . practice ir . :io_ :. ;,icn of :.rt . 3 as such befora the CoÃ¦r.'-ss_or, although they have accepted that a question might arise in such an application as to whether an a(iminiscr ;itive practice rrevented d~mestic remedies from being effective . They have denied that there was in Northern Ireland at anÃ¿ relevan t time an administrative ptactice in violation of Art . 3 or any administrative practice which rendered domesti c remedies ineffecDive . They have argued that in an emergency situation such as that prevailing in IJorthern Ireland a t the relevant timc, it is :rievitable that incidents of ill-treatment ty the secu_ity forces w'_ .il occur tuc that the practice of the authc :ities was to try to prevent cuch incidents . They have further 3ubmitted that it is a requirement that an applicant under Art . 25 of the Convention should have exhausted the remedies available to him unless th)y have been stiown to be ineffective . They have argued that the remedies available ir. Northern Ireland were effective and adequate and that the applications should therefor e be declared inadmissible on the ground that ihe applicants . have not exhausted the remedies available or, as an alternative in the case of the four applicants who have obtained compensation, on the ground that they could no longer claim to have been victims of a violation of the Convention within the meaning of Art . 25 . Under Art . 26 of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with an application where all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international law . Under this rule an applic .int is obliged to make "normal use" of remedies "likely to be effective and adequate" to remedy the matters of whic h
he complains (Cf . decisions of the Commission No . 788/60, Austria v . Italy, Yearbook IV, p . 172 ; No . 4330/69, Simon-Herold v . Austria, Yearbook XIV, p . 352) . Wher e an applicant makes use of such remedies and thereby obtains adequate redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of the Convention, he can no longer claim to b e a victim of a violation . Since, under Art . 25 an individual may only introduce an application if he can claim to be a victim of a violation, the application must be considered incompatible with the provisions of the Conventio n (Cf . decision of the Commission No . 5575/72, Decisions and Reports Vol . 1, p . 44) . In its examination of the preliminary issue of admissibility the Commission will therefore first consider whether adequate and effective remedies are available to remedy the specific violations of Art . 3 allrged by each applicant .
64 -
II . THE NATURE OF THE REMEDIES AVAILABL E The nature of the remedies available to the applicants is clearly established and there is no disagreement between the parties as to what they were . In the first place a person claiming to have been assaulted, physically or otherwise, by a member of the police or army might brin g
an action for damages under the common law . Such an action could be laid against the individual or individuals concerned, in which case it would be necessary for the plaintiff in the action to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the individual defendant or defendants had assaulted him . Where it was alleged that an assault had been committed by a soldier in the course of his duties, an action could, by virtue of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, be laid agains t the Crown, such actions being brought in practice against the Ministry of Defence . Similarly, where it was alleged that a member of the R .U .C . had been responsible, an action would lie against the Chief Constable of the R .U .C . by virtue of the Police Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 . In the case of actions against the Ministry of Defence or Chief Constable it was not necessary for a plaintiff to identify any particular individual as having assaulted him . He would succeed in his action if he proved, on a balance of probabilities, that he had beÂ°n assaulted by a member or members of the army or police as the case might be . Such an action for damages could be brought, at the choice of the plaintiff, in either the County Court, where the amount which could be awarded in damages was limited, or in the High Court, where there was no such limit . In addition to claiming damages in compensation for matters such as material loss sustained and physical injury and pain suffered, the plaintiff could also claim aggravated and exemplary damages in a case where he alleged tha t ne had been deliberately assaulted by an agent of the State acting from an improper motive . The trial of an action for damages in the High Court might take place before a judge alone or before a judge and jury . A plaintiff could, in the first place, serve notice that he wished the trial to be .before a judge alone . It appears that whilst the Crown then had the right to serve a counter-notice asking for trial before a judge and jury, in practice they would not normally do so . When an action went to trial the damages were assessed by the judge or jury . In practice in Northern Ireland the majority of civil proceedings in which assault by members of the security forces was allÃ©ged were settled before the cases came to court . Thus out of 231 such cases commenced in the period between 9 August 1971 and 30 September 1975 and since disposed of, only 11 went to trial, the remainder having been settled .
-F5-
A further possibility for obtaining compensation for `-njuries suffered as a result of an assault, lay in a claim against the state for compensation under the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 . Under that Act a County Court might, when it was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that a claimant had suffered injury as a direct result of a criminal offence, and provided certain other conditions were fulfilled, award him compensation . When other compensation had been obtained, for example, in an action for damages against the offender, this fell to be deducted from the sum awarded under the Act, or, if it was cbtained later, to be paid to the responsible Ministry insofar as it did not exceed the statutory award . There was no limit to the amount which could be awarded, although the Act laitl cown certain conditions for the calculation oC the appropriate sum . The sum awarded could not include any element of aggravated or exemplary damages . In addition to the possibility of obtaining compensation, procedures existed for the investigation of complaints against members of the security forces, which investigations coul d lead to prosecution or disciplinary action . In the case of a complaint against a member of the R .U .C ., the Chief Constable was obliged, by 5 .13 of the Police Act (Northern =reland) 1970, to arrange for an investigation . Suc n h_nvestigaowrnpactierdoubya : .nvestigating police officer appointed by the Chief Constable . He would normally be senior in rank to the ser.ior officer involved in the complaint and would be from a different area . The police were also responsible for the _nvestigation of complaints against the army, although statements from members of the army were in fact take n by members of the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police and forwarded to the R .U .C . In either case it was, at the relevant time, the responsibility uf the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide, on the basis of the investigation report, whether any member of r.he security forces should be prosecuted . In a criminal prosecution the onus was on the Crown to prove the guil t nf each individual accused beyond reasonable dnubt . " The Commission considers that the possibility of obtaining eompensation may, inRormal circumstances, be an adequate and sufficient remedy in respect of a complaint of ill-treatment in violation of Art . 3 of the Convention iCf . decision of the Commission No . 4225/69, X . v . the United Kingdom, Collection of Decisions, Vol . 33, p . 34) . ^his .has been accepted by the applicants, who have, ; :owever, submitted that in the particular circumstances _,revailing in Northern Ireland, the existing remedie s . .ere neither effective nor adequate . -ha Commission nas therefore considered, in the light o .' the aâ¢:idence +rrl the submissions of the parties, whe . . :er `t has been stab_`-sh?d [.hat there were any special cSrcumstanee s
- 66 -
which absolved the applicants, according to recognised rules of international law, from remedies available . In this connection, :t in particular whether they were adequate to applicants' complaints .
III .
the generally exhausting the has considered remedy the
THE STEPS TAKEN BY THE APPLICANTS TO EXHAUST REMEDIES
Before considering these matters in detail, it is convenient to recall briefly the steps which each of the applicants have taken to obtain compensation in the domestic courts . Each of them has instituted civil proceedings in order to obtain damages . Writs were issued on behalf of the applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy on 16 May 1972, on behalf of the applicant Carlin on 22 October 1974, on behalf of applicants Kelly and Kearns in April 1974 . The actions brought by the applicants Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy and McBride have been settled on agreed terms, whilst those brought by the three remaining applicants are, as at the date of this decision, still pending . In terms of their settlements the .applicants Donnelly and Bradley each received 1 5,000 damages, the applicant Duffy received 1 6,000 and the applicant McBride 1 301 . Each of these applicants also received their legal costs . In the case of McBride, the settlement was made without admission of liability on the part of the defendant, who in his case was the Chief Constable . IV . THE EFFECTIVENESS IN PRACTICE 0F THE COMPENSATION MACHINLM Y The Commission will first consider whether the right to compensation was effective in practice . The applicants have submitted that the right to an effective remedy includes not only the theoretical availability of compensation but also complementary rights necessary to make the right to compensation effective in practice . They have submitted in particular that an individual should expect not to be impeded, obstructed or harassed by the security forces he has complained against . They have referred to evidence they have adduced as to harassment of certain of the present applicants and other persons in respect of whom statements have been submitted and have alleged that harasssment or reprisals by the security forces he has complained against . They have referred to evidence they have adduced as to harassment of certain of th e present applicants and other persons in respect of whom statements have been submitted and have alleged that harassment or reprisals by the security forces against persons complaining against them was prevalent and that fear of such harassment was also prevalent in the minority community . They have also referred to the alleged "general lack of confidence on the part of the minority community in legal remedies" as relevant in this context .
67 -
.Allegations of harassment were made by each of the applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy in their oral evidence and in written statements submitted to the Commission . The details of these allegations have been referred to above . Mr Donnelly referred, in a written statement to three specific incidents between June 1972 and his move to the Fepublic in November . Accepting Mr Donnelly's account of these incidents, which has not been contradicted or challenged in cross-examination, as substantially accurate, the Commission nevertheless considers that it has not been established that they were linked with his complaints of ill-treatment rather than the result of suspicions hel d ty the security forces or normal surveillance activity . Mr Bradley has complained of a number of incidents, in particular raids on his home, in the period betwee n Nevertheless, the evidence shows June 197 2 and March 1973 . that he was at various times suspected by the security forces of involvement in illegal activities and the Commission dors not consider that it has been shown that the various incidents were connected with his complairits . Mr Duffy has also complained of a number of incidents of harassment . In particular he has complained of a number cf raids on his home, that he was arrested on a charge of car theft and threatened by Detective Constable M ., on e cf the officers accused of assaulting him, and that he was arrested on a "trumped up" charge of kidnapping in the niiddle of the trial of M ., B . and C . in March 1973 . However, it appears from the evidence before the Commission that there had been a lot of IRA activity in the area wher e Mr Duffy lived, and that houses were frequently searche d and people brought in for questioning by the security forces . It is not disputed that he was convicted of two charges connected with the attempted theft of a vehicle some tw o weeks after he was allegedly threatened by Detective Constable M . It also appears from the evidence before the Commission, including the transcript of Mr Duffy's trial, that ther e was sufficient ground for suspicion against Mr Duffy to justify his arrest and trial on the kidnapping charge . The Commission further notes that Mr Duffy was arrested during the trial of M ., B . and C . because he had apparently been in the Republic for some time prior to the trial . In the light of the whole evidence on the matter the Commission therefore rejects Mr Duffy's allegation that the kidnapping charge against him was "trumped up" for the purpose of hampering the prosecution of M . ; B . and C . It further considers that it has not been shown that other activities of the security forces of which Mr Duffy has complained were part of a campaign of harassment connected with his complaints, rather than the result of suspicions held by them . Even assuming as he has alleged, that he was threatene d by Detec :ive Cons[able M . on one or.casion when he was under arrest, the Commission does not consider it established that his arrest and detention on that occasion were connected with his cocplaints .
- 68 -
The Cosvsission has further considered whether the activities of the security forces, regardless of their purpose, in fact hindered these three applicants in their attempt to obtain compensation . In this respect it is relevant t o note that all three applicants have persisted with their domestic actions and have in fact obtained compensation, although after some delay . Their allegations of harassment all relate to the period between about June 1972 and about March 1973, but it does not appear that any activities of the security forces during this period in fact caused delay or otherwise hindered the applicants' domestic actions . No action appears to have been taken for a considerable period aCter the issue of the writs . However, according to counsel for the applicants, the reason for the failure to pursue the matter in the period up to March 1973 was that it was felt better, as a matter of legal practice, to await the conclusion or the trial oC M ., D . nnd C . Nnnc nf the^e applicants has alleged that hu vr'io in fuct tboterrud by l'ear of the security forces from purs-iing his domestic action . It has, it is true, been stated that the fact that Mr Donnelly has been resident in the Republic of Ireland created certain difficulties in the latter stages of his action with regard ~o obtaining medical and psychiatric reports . Details of these difficulties and details of the extent to which they are alleged to have hampered or delayed Mr Donnelly's action have not, however, been given and the Commission therefore concludes that it has not been estalished that Mr Donnelly's move to the Republic, even assuming that it can b e attributed to the activities of the security forces, caused him any greater difficulty than would normally be incurred by an applicant trying to exhaust remedies from outside the jurisdiction in question . The applicant Carlin clairned that he had been afrai d of harassment after his release from Long Kesh in January 1974 . He claimed to have left Londonderry because he had heard that his detention order had beer . "reactivated" . He also said that he had been arrested twice since his return and held for a fairly short period cn each occasion . He did not, however, appear to connect these incidents with his complaints nC ill-treatment . The Commission therefore finds that i t lias not been shown that any unju ;tified harassment ol ' His allegrd fears of harassment or Mr Carlin took place . extremist activity did not in fac.t prevent him from taking ateps to initiate civil proceedings shortly after his It is true that it has been alleged release from custody . that Mr Carlin moved to the Repuilic through fear of arrest and that as a result difficulties arose for his lawyers in obtaining frorn him a statement of means for the purposes of his legal aid application . These difficulties were, however, overcome, apparently with the co-operation of the legal aid authorities . The applicant Mcnride has been in custody, continuously from the time of his alleged ill-treatment . It has not been alleged that he suffered any harassment oy the security forces or that he feared such harassment .
- 69 -
The applicant Kelly claimed that he had been afraid of harassment after his release in November 1973 . He has not, however, alleged that any such harassment took place an d any fears he had did not prevent him from taking steps, apparently shortly after his release, to initiate a civil action . The applicant Kearns, for his part stated in evidence that he had not been afraid of bringing civil proceeding s at any time since his release . It has been alleged that he was arrested in June 1974 and hooded for a number of hours, although Mr Kearns did not himself mention this matter in his evidence . It appears, however, that on this occasion he was held for about two days and questioned about a specific incident and matters related thereto and then released . There is no evidence to suggest that his arrest was linked with his complaints . As mentioned above the applicants have also referred to an alleged general lack of confidence of the minority community in legal remedies as relevant in the context of the effectiveness of remedies . In their original application they also submitted that "any remedies which may exist are subject to such delays as to render them illusory" . They have also suggested that "appeal to the courts may well be frustrated by the inherent bias of the system in favour of the security forces" . In order to see whether the above arguments are justified the Commission will now consider whether it has been shown that the courts did not in fact function with impartiality or with sufficient speed and whether on either of these grounds or on the ground of the alleged lack of confidence, the applicants in the present case were absolved from exhausting the reinedies at their disposal . It is true that in a situation of civil strife doubts may arise as to the impartiality of juries . In the present case reference has been made in evidence to the possibility that a jury would not be sympathetic to persons such a s the present applicants . It has also been suggested that the verdict of the jury in the trial of M ., B . and C . was a perverse one . Whilst the Commission makes no finding on that matter, it notes that the danger of perverse verdicts from juries in Northern Ireland was widely recognised . The Diplock Commission drew attention in their report (1) to the fact that Protestants were more likely to be qualified as jurors than Catholics and to the danger of both perverse convictions and perverse acquittals in cases involving terrorist offences . The Commission considers it inevitable that similar dangers would exist in relation to jury verdicts in either civil claims or criminal prosecutions involving allegations of ill-treatment made by terrorist suspects against members of the security forces . On the other hand the Commission considers that there is no evidence before it from which it could be concluded that the judges in Horthern Ireland functioned other tha n (1) Sre Chapter
5,
p . 17 .
- 70 -
with impartiality in cases involving the security forces . In particular no evidence has been produced from which any inference of bias on the part of the judiciary in favour of the security forces could be drawn . Details of a number of cases have been produced in evidence, including a judgement obtairied in Armagh County Court in February 1972 in the case of Moore v . Shillington (a civil claim fo r
damages brought by a detainee alleging he had been ill-treated) and details of a number of cases in which statements obtained from detainees were ruled inadmissible on the ground tha t they might not be voluntary . These cases, rather than indicating any bias, indicate that the judiciary, in appropriate cases, scrutinised carefully the actions and the evidence of members of the security forces . The Commission recalls that it was open to a plaintiff to serve a notice requesting a trial before a judge alone . It has not been disputed that in practice the Crown would accept this and the Commission therefore concludes that it ha s not been shown that an individual's prospects of obtaining compensation in a civil action were materially hampere d by any bias which may have existed in juries . With reference to the allegatioris of delay, i .he Commissio n notes that it would have been possible for each of the applicants in the present cases to have pursued their domestic cases much more speedily than they did . In the cases of the applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy a substantial, and largely unexplained, delay occurred between the issuing of writs on their behalf, in May 1972 and the delivery of their statements of claim, which di d not occur until May 1974 . These delays were lareely th r erspoaiblyfthepicanLS oelvsrLhi lawyers and cannot be attributed in any way to the workings of the courts . Evidence has been given to the effect that an average case might last about four years from the instructions of the solicitor until the conclusions of the action . Details of the procedural stages through whic h an action would pass have, however, also been given in evidence . It appears from this evidence that the first stage would be the issuing of a writ, followed by the delivery of the more detailed statement of claim . The time within which the statement of claim was delivered appears in practice to have depended solely on the plaintiff or his legal advisers . A defence would then filed by the defendants . Strictly speaking this should have bee n filed within 21 days of the statement of claim, but in practice the solicitor for a plaintiff would normally allow longer, a time of about two months apparently being normal . Pleadings would be closed 14 days after the lodging of the defence, or on the lodging of a further written pleading by the plaintiff . It further appear s that it was pos ible for either party to delay proce ding s at the stage of written pleadings for reasons such as obtaining medical reports . After closure of the pleadings o cese would apparently take at least 18 months to come for t .rial b-fore a judge and jury, although if the trial wa s
- 71 -
to be before a judge alone, this delay would be less and possibly only about 9 months . These delays were caused through pressure on the courts and on legal practitioners resulting from the emergency eituation . The Commiseion does not consider that the time required for completion of a civil action in the High Court was in all the circumstances unreasonable and therefore concludes that it has not been shown that this means of recourse to the domestic courts waa subject to such delay as could render it ineffective or inadequate as a remedy .
With reference to the alleged general lack of confidence in legal remedies, the Commission notee that only two of the applicants referred in their evidence to any lack of confidence in the courts in the context of their domestic actions for compensation . However any such lack of confidence did not prevent them from bringing proceedings . Figures given by the Attorney-General i n a Parliamentary Answer submitted by the applicants, indicating that 789 civil actions alleging assault by the security forces had been started between August 1971 and September 1975, also show that any lack of confidence there may have been did not prevent a substantial number of other persons from initiating proceedings . Even if~ a general lack of confidence could, in the light of the Commission's findings as to the working of the courts, constitute a special reason absolving an applicant from exhausting the remedy in question, it has not been shown that the applicants in these cases were materially influenced by any such consideration . Insofar as they may, individually, have had doubts as to their prospects of success, the Commission recalls that it has constantly held that mere doubt as to the prospecta of success of a given remed y
does not constitute a special circumstance absolving an applicant from exhausting it (see e .g . decisions of the Commisaion, No . 1661/62, X . and Y . v . Belgium, Yearbook VI, P . 368, Collection of Decisions 10, p . 162 and No . 712/60, Retimag v . the Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook IV , p . 384, Collection of Decisions 8, p . 29) . The applicants have alsd submitted that an individual should expect that his claim will not be frustrated due to lack of co-operation by .the security forces, by suppression of evidence or a conspiracy to deny his ill-treatment . They have alleged in this context that in each of the present seven cases there was a practice of concealment and deception on the part of the security forces when allegations of ill-treatment were made against them . Each of the three applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy indicated in their evidence that they had been seen by a eubetantial number of soldiers at the military post . Thir evidence is corroborated by that of a security forc e
- 72 -
witness who accepted that they could have been seen by between 20 and 70 soldiers if they were in the corridor there for any length of time . It also emerged from his evidence that an NCO and some two or three soldiers would have been on dut y in the guardroom during the night and that a number of sentries would also have been on duty . It hae been accepted tha t these three applicants were assaulted at the post during the night in question and it is not in dispute that they euffered relatively severe injuries as a result . The Commission notes that, despite the fact that statements were apparently taken from a number of soldiers by a member of the Special Investigation Branch of the military police, who had been informed who had been on duty at the relevant times, none of them apparently admitted involvement in any misconduct . No soldier on duty at the relevant time was called by the prosecution to give evidence at the trial of M ., B . and C . and it can therefore be inferred that none of the soldiers gave any substantial information to the investigators as to who the three men had sustained their injuries . Given the undisputed evidence as to the layout of the post and the nature of the injuries suffered by the three men, which indicate that they each suffered a severe assault, the Commission considers that it must have been known to at least some of those on duty that the men had been assaulted and by whom they had been assaulted . It therefore concludes that a "covering-up" of what had occurred was effected by at least some of those on duty at the relevant time . The effect oC this "cover-up" was that the authorities were deprived of valuable evidence highly relevant in any prosecution of those responsible . In the event the only direct evidence given for the prosecutio n at the trial of M ., B . and C . as to who had committed the assaults was that of the three applicants . The Commission also notes that it is not in dispute that Mr McBride sustained injuries,consisting of two black eyes and a swelling of the lip, whilst in custody at the police station . No police witness whose evidence has been adduced before the Commission admitted having seen an y such injuries or gave any explanacion as to how they had occurred, although some witnesses stated that Mr McBride's eyes had been red or swollen from weeping . This does not amount to any explanation as to when or how the injuries were sustained . The only persons to admit to th e investigating officer that they had seen any sign of injury on Mr McBride were two officers who had not been involved with him during his period in custody . The Commission can only conclude that certain police officers deliberately withheld information both from it and the investigating officer . It has never been seriously suggested that Mr McBride's injuries were sustained otherwise than as a result of an assault on him whils t
in police custody and there is no evidence before the ^~mmission which could support any other explanation . I t
- 73 -
can only involved deprived relevant
be concluded that the refusal of any of the officers with him to give any information concerning them the authorities of evidence which would have been and valuable in any prosecution of those responsible .
The effect of such solidarity amongst members of the security forces involved in or having knowledge of an assault on an arrestee is to diminish or even remove altogether any chance of successful criminal or disciplinary action against the persons responsible . In any proceedings the identification of the persons responsible will probably depend solely on the evidence of the arrestee himself, and , as in the case of MM Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy, the evidence of others in the same eituation . In such a situation, i t may well be profitable for the defence to attack the character of the prosecution witnesses, as was done in the trial of M ., B . and C . whilst also leading evidence of the previous good character of the accused members of the security forces . Evidence of identification by other members of the security forces could in such circumstances be crucial . The position in civil proceedings was different, however, since it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove, in a case against the Crown or Chief Constable, the identity of the individual or individuals who assaulted him . Whilst a "cover-up" within the particular army post or police station might succeed in concealing the identity of persons responsible for an assault, it was much more difficult, in view of the practicee followed in Northern Ireland, to conceal the fact that an assault had taken place, at least if it caused injury . Thus the applicants Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy were examined by a police doctor after transfer to the police station and after they had complained to a police officer there of ill-treatment . He kept a record of his findings . Facilities were given for them to be examined , the following day, by a doctor called by their own solicitor and a photographer was allowed to photograph their injuries . On transfer to prison they were examined by the prison doctor, who had been specially called in and who made brief notes of their injuries and arranged their transfer to hospital . They were then treated by military medical staff . The doctor in charge of their case fully recorded their injuries . On his transfer Ão prison, Mr McBride was examined by a prison doctor who made brief notes of the injuries he found and of Mr McBride having stated he had been "struck by fists" . It has not been suggested tha t Mr McBride had any injuries other than those he recorded . It also emerges from the evidence that the prison chaplain at the prison, where MM, Donnelly, Bradley . Duffy and McBride were all transferred, made a practice cf recording complaints of il1-treatmÃ©nt by the security forces made by prisoners who came in . This was a matter on which he had strong feelings and he took steps to publicise such complaints and bring them to the attention of -he 3uthorities .
- 74 -
In the light of the evidence, particularly as to the medical examinations which were carried out and permitted by the authorities, the Commission concludes that the practice of the higher authorities was not to conceal the fact that people had sustairied injuries in custody but rather to record such injuries and provide treatment if necessary, as also to provide facilities for independent medical examination . The suppression of evidence which occurred was the responsibility of persons present at the relevant times in the militar y post and police station in question . The applicants have submitted that the settlement of Mr McBride's case, in particular, should be seen in the context of the dil'ficulties which, they say, would have faced him in proving his case in the light of the police evidence denying that he had been iIl-treated . They have further indicated that the same factors would apply, although to a lesser extent, in relation to the cases or MM Uonnelly, Bradley and Duffy . Whilst it must b e accepted that a "cover-up" by persons present, in addition to hampering criminal and disciplinary proceedings, would of necessity also deprive an individual who had been ussaulted of evidence in civil proceedings, the Commission does not consider that it had been shown in [he cases of MM Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy and McBride, that this factor materially influenced their prospects of success, given the other evidence that was available to them . It would in any event be for the domestic courts to weigh the evidence of the applicants concerned against that of the members of the security forces taking account of the other available evidence . With regard to the applicant Carlin, the Commission notes that at his request a doctor was called to examine him at police station "B" after his alleged ill-treatment at police station "A", and that he was medically examined at the beginning and end of his period in custody at the police holding centre . He was further examined on arrival a t Long Kesh, and later, by an independent doctor . Written records were kept by each of these doctors . Medical evidence of Mr Carlin's condition at each significant stage of his custody was therefore available . Although it was euggested in evidence that the doctors who examined hi m at police station "B" and the holding centre should have seen more than they noted, the Commission finds that the medical evidence, looked at as a whole presents a consistent picture and that there is no reason to doubt that th e recorded findings of the various doctors were not substantially accurate . The Commission therefore concludes that if any "cover-up" did occur, it must have been limited to the police officers present at or about the relevant times . I n addition objective evidence existed against which the likelihood of Mr Carlin's story could be judged by a domestic court . The task of the domestic court would include judging the likelihood of Mr Carlin's version o f
- 75 -
events, in the light of the medical evidence, against the version given by the police . There is rio reason to suppose that a domestic court would accept the police version o f eveuLtl wiLÃlUut Juc CullbluePaLiVn ui ÃI .E qu'diiLy an d
without due consideration of other evidence . The Commission is therefore of the opinion that, even assuming a "cover-up" of such did occur, i t has not bee n established that it .was a nature or extent as woul .d prevent the domestic courts fr o m functiÃ´ning affectively in determining Mr Carlin's claim for cumpensation .
In relation to the applicants Kelly and Kearns, the Commission observes that as i n the case of Mr Carlin, th s epractiofhuritesnalowg,dthemslv carrying out, medical exa:A nations of persons in custody, resulted in medical evidence being available as to their condition shortly after their alleged 'll-treatment . It therefore concludes that even assuming a "cover-up" occurred in these cases also, i t has not been established that it â¢.+asof such a nature or extent as woulo pre',rent the domestic courts from functioning effectively i n determining their claims for compensation . The applicants have also submitted that the vast ma!ority of compensation awards in Northern Ireland are made ratia through the form of extra-legal ex_g~ payments, by means of which the respondent Government seefcs to avoid any investigation i nto the larger issues of ill-treatment . They have referred to the Commission's decision on the admissibility of Applicat!on No . 299 / 57, Greece v . the United KinF;dom ( Yearbook II, p . 186) (the Second Cyprus Case) and nave submitted chat the Commission's jurisprudence makes cleir that remedies which are a matter of grace or exec -- â¢`-+e discretion do n , t constitute adequate and effective remedies which require to be exhausted unde r Art . 26 . It is true that in the case cited by the applicants the Commission held that a petition addressed to the Queen or the Governor of Cyprus, demanding comoensation for alleged ill-treatment was not, being a .measure of grace, among those which must be exhausted by virtue of Art . 26 . In their actions in the domestic courts the applicants in the present cases seek compensation not Qs a measure of grace but as a matter of right . If' in atrial in the domestic courts they were to prove their allegations of ill-trea'.ment, even partially, they would in law be entitled to compensation . In such circumstances an offer made in settlement of an action does not constitute an offer made as a measure of grace but an offer in satisfaction of a demand for .3 right . T_t is true that an offer may be made without admission of liability, as was done in the case of the applicant McBride . It is, however, open to a plaintiff to refuse such an offe r if he considers an admission of liability sufficiently important, although the Commission recognises that if he thereafte r
- 76 -
rails to obtain a greater sum in compensation than that offered, he may become liable for the costs of the action l'rom the date of the offer . However, if a plaintiff accepts an offer in settlement, he accepts it in full satisfaction of the demand he has made and voluntarily renounces his right to have the questions of liability and the amount of damages investigated and determined by the courts . The fact that an action for damages is settled, by agreement between the parties before trial, cannot, in the opinio n of the Commission, render such an action inadequate or inefl'ective as a remedy . For these reasons the Commission concludes that the applicants have failed to show that the machinery for providing compensation did not, or was unlikely to, work It has, on the contrary, been effectively in practice . shown to have worked effectively i n the cases of the applicants Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy and McBride, each o f whom received sums in settlement of their action whic h were apparently reasonably proportionate to the injuries they suffered . In this context the Commission also notes that in the cases or MM Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy, the sums paid were high and it has not been disputed that they included a substantial element of punitive damages, in the form of aggravated and exemplary damages . V . THE ADEQUACY OF COMPENSATION ASA
REMEDY IN TH E
Nevertheless, the applicants have submitted that compensation was not, in the circumstances prevailing in Northern Ireland, an adequate remedy . They have alleged that each of them was, apart from being the victim of specific acts of ill-treatment in violation of Art . 3, . also the victim of an administrative practice in violation of that article . Such an administrative practice of necessity, in their submission, renders domestic remedies ineffective and inadequate, and in particular renders compensation inadequate as a remedy, since the compensation machinery and normal legal machinery do not operate so as prevent the behaviour complained of . Where such a practice exists, the remedy of damages would not , in their submission, adequately ensure the protection of the rights of the individual under the Convention . They have observed that Art . 3 of the Convention cannot be derogated from and have submitted that, where there is an administrative practice, it is not sufficient in order to ensure conformity with the special status of Art . 3, A for a State to show that compensation is available . state cannot, in their submission, pay fcr the right to torture or otherwise to violate Art . 3 . 7hev have further submitted that the sums paid in compensation are simply treated as a necessary cost of the respondent Government's policies in Northern Ireland .
- 77 -
The respondent Government have denied that there was any administrative practice in violation of Art . 3 in Northern Ireland at the relevant time and have submitted that the evidence in these applications shows that th, applicants were not victims of any such practice . They have submitted thit the applicants' suggestion, that by paying compensation they were paying for the right to torture,completely misrepresented the facts and :h^ relevant concepte under the Convention . In this respect they have submitted that thc function of the State under the Convention is to secure the rights and freedoms laid down in the Convention and to make good any falling dowr . in the securing of these rights, by making restitutio in integrum or, where that is not possible, by ma ing reparation [ rough the payment of compensation . They have submitted that in circumstances such as those orevailing in Northern Ireland, it was inevitable that some members of th e security forces would go beyond what was permissible and commit acts of ill-treatment and that they discharged their obligations under the Convention in such cases by the payment of compensation . The Commission observes that under the Convention a State is obliged not to violate the rights and freedoms set forth and is also obliged, under Art . 13, to provide individuals with an effective remedy in the event tha t any violation of their rights and freedoms in fact occurs . Where a State takes reasonable steps to comply with its obligations under Art . 3 of the Convention, but treatment In contravention thereof nevertheless occurs, the poesibility of obtaining compensation will, in the opinion of the Commission, in general constitute an adequate remedy since it is likely to he the only means whereby redress can be given to the individual for the wrong he has euffered . Where an adequate remedy is obtained by the victim, the effect under the Convention is, as the Commission has already observed, that the violation is deemed to have been rectified and he can no longer clai m
to be a victim of a violation within the meaning of Art . 25 . On the other hand, compensation could not, in the opinion of the Commission, .be deemed to have rectified a violation in a situation where the State had not taken reasonable measures to comply with its obligations under Art . 3 . The obligation to provide a remedy does not constitute a subatitute for or alternative to those obligations, but rather an obligation to provide redress within the domestic system for violations which may, inevitably, occur despite measures taken to ensure compliance with the substantive provisions of Art . 3 . Thus, i f conduct which contravened Art . 3 were to be authorised by domestic law, even if the law also provided for the payment of compensation to the victims of such conduct, such compensation would not constitute a remedy whic h could be deemed to rectify the violation of Art . 3 . Similarly ,
78 -
if the higher authorities of the State pursued a policy or administrative practice whereby they authorised or tolerated conduct in violation of Art . 3, compensation would not of itself constitute an adequate remedy . The protection afforded by Art . 3 of the Convention is, as the applicants have submitted, an absolute one and a State cannot escape from its obligations thereunder merely by paying compensation . Compensation machinery can only be seen as an adequat e remedy in a situation where the higher authorities have taken reasonable steps to comply with their obligations under Art . 3 by preventing, as far as possible the occurrence or repetition of the acts in question . In view of the applicants' allegation that they have each been victims of an administrative practice in violation of Art . 3, and the evidence they have adduced in support thereof, the Commission therefore considers it relevant to examine what steps were taken by the auLhorities to preven t the occurrence or repetition of the acts complained of, for the purpose of determining whether an action for damages ca n be considered an adequate remedy for the violations of Art . 3 alleged by each of the applicants . It is not in dispute that ill-treatment such as that alleged by each of the present applicants was contrarylto domestic law and that such ill-treatment would constitute both a crime and, under the civil law, a tort giving rise to the liability in damages of those responsible . Nor is it in dispute that such ill-treatment would have been contrary to the standing orders issued to the security forces and in force at ttie relevant time, which nrdors were, towards the end of April 1972 and thereafter reiterated and reinforced . It is further relevant to note that the applicants have accepted that it might well be that at the highest levels of the State, there was no desire that suspects should be treated in a manner contrary to Art . 3 of the Convention . They have, however, submitted that ill-treatment of suspects nevertheless occurred on a wid eemnscaldthermusavbnidlevnth chain of command which tolerated and had knowledge cf ill-treatment of euspects . They have further submitted that tolerance in the form ofindifference, on the part of the governmental authorities, to repeated allegations of ill-treatment, wae evident at the relevant time . Having examined the evidence, the Commission is however of the opinion that it does not disclose that the applicants have been the victims of a policy or administrative practice of ill-treatment tolerated by the higher authorities, which could have had the effect of rendering compensation inadequate as a remedy for any wrong they suffered, but that it discloses on the contrary thnt the higher authorities did not react with indifference to thr .ir allegations .
- 79 -
In the tiret place the Commission observes that the allegations of each of the applicants were investigated reasonably promptly when they came to the notice of the authorities . Out of the seven applicants only three co-operated with the investigating police officer by giving him a statement of what they alleged had occurred . The remaining applicants, for differing reasons, refused to do so . No evidence was led before the Commission from the officer who investigated the complaints of MM Donnelly, Bradley and Duffy . It appears, however, from the evidence available, that an investigation was started within a matter of a few days after they had been assaulted, since at that time a member ot the Special Inveetigation Branch of the Royal Military Police asked permission to interview som e
of the soldiers about the incident . Statements were taken from the three applicants in their solicitor's offic e in Belfast on different'daysin June 1972, shortly after their release from custody . Each of the applicants agreed in evidence that he had been interviewed carefully and thoroughly . This is borne out by the contents of the statements themselves, which have been eubmitted to the Commissibn . Thereafter on the basis of the statements taken, M ., B . and C ., who had each been named or described by one or more of the applicants, were prosecuted . The Commission hae examined the transcript of the trial of M ., B . and C . and has noted that the evidence available was presented thoroughly and fairly . As a result of the evident refusal of any person present at the militar y
post at the relevant time to co-operate with the investigating officer, the evidence ae to the identification of those responsible for the assault was, as the Commission has observed, limited to that of the ttiree applicant s themselves . The reason for the acquittal of M ., B . and C . which resulted from the verdict of a jury, cannot be established . The possibility that it resulted from the "cover-up" by members of the security forces, or, as has been suggested, from bias on the part of the jury, cannot be ruled out . The Commiseion does not, however, consider that it can be attributed to any failure on the part of those responsible adequately tÃ´ conduct the investigation and proeecution . The Commission further notes tha t the charges against the three accused were serious ones, namely inflicting grievous bodily harm on all three applicants in the cases of M . and B . and on Mr Duffy only in the cas e of C . The fact that such a prosecution is brought may, having regard to its potentially serious consequences for the accused, to some extent itself deter members of the security forces from assaulting persons in their custody . Detailed evidence has been adduced as to the This wae brought investigation of Mr Carlin's complaint . directly to the notice of the Secretary of State's office and as a result an investigating officer was appointed b y
- 80-
the Chief Constable three days later . The investigating officer took action to contact Mr Carlin who, however, refused to see him and co-operate wich him . The result was that the investigatirrg officer's knowledge o f
Mr Carlin's complaints, and in particular of the identity of the persons who he alleged had been responsible for ill-treating him, was limited to press reports and what was set out in the one statement available to him . From the evidence before it, including that of Mr Carlin, police officers present at the relevant times and the investigating officer himself, the Commission finds that the investigation is open to criticism o . The investigating officer failed t no certaipos zstablish the presence at the police holding centre of cwo members of the Special Branch, apparently because he did not check the relevant records . He did not apparently report the fact that no records were kept of conversations which two other members of the Special Branch had had with Mr Carlin and did not in the opinio noftheCmisn,vetgaconsbetwMrCali n and these two officers sufficiently carefully . In addition, the Commission does not consider that tie investigated with sufficient thoroughness the suggestion that some of Mr Carlin's injuries could be explaine d by the finding of a staple in his cell . Despite these shortcomings, the Commission note seacthaoniderblgthofimewspnt, im when the police in Northern Ireland were under considerable pressure, in investigatirig a complaint which was extremely vague as to matters of detail and which was laid agains t persons who wer , to al intents and purpose , unidentif ed . With the exception of the conclusion that the scratches found on Mr Carlin's hands had been self-inflicted, which the Commission considers was insufficiently supported, , the Commission does not consider the investigating o :'ficer' :onclusions to have been unjustified on the information sr available to him . The investigation into Mr McBride's allegations was initiated following complaints made by his solicitor a . An investigating officer was appointe d taremndhig
five days later but, when it emerged that officers senio r to him were involved in the complaint, another senior officer was appointed . He took over the investigation some three weeks later .
Mr McBride refused to co-operate with eithe . On the orders of the Chief rinvestga oficrConstabl e an investigation of Mr McBride's allegations was nevertheless carried out . The material on which the investigating nfficer had to base his investigation consisted of a newspaper report which had appeared in the Irish News o n
-B1-
29 April 1972, reporting the allegations made by Mr McBride's solicitor in court, a statement made by Mr McBride to the prison chaplain shortly after his arrival in prison and a brief statement made by the chaplain himself . The Commission considers that the investigation carried out by the investing officer was a thorough one . Statements were obtained from all the police officers who had been on duty at the relevant time and on the basis of these statements and other evidence he established details of events during Mr McBride'a period in custody which in most respects are in substantial agreement with the account Mr McBride himself gave in his evidence to the Cosunission . He also established that Mr McBrid e had sustained injuries to his eyes and lip whilst in custody at the police station . The one crucial matter which he was not able to establish was how or when theee injuries had been caused, all the officers on duty at the relevant time having denied any knowledge of them . When Mr McBride's allegetione of ill-treatment were not raised in court when he pleaded guilty to certain charges in connection with which he had been interviewed at the police station he finally recommended in his report that no further action ehould be taken . The Commission does not consider that in view of the material at the investigating officer'a disposal, his conclusions insofar as they indicate that he was unabl e to point out who had caused the injuries, were unjustified . It has been suggested by the applicants that criminal or disciplinary proceedings could, in the circumstances, have been instituted against a police officer who was identified by name in the statement as having assaulte d Mr McBride . Before taking criminal or disciplinary action against an individual, the responsible authorities must obviously consider the quality and quantity of evidence against him . Mr MeBride's statement is in many respects vague and no description of the officer named or any other person alleged to have assaulted him is given . Mr McBride refused to elaborate it . In the circumstances, the Commission does not consider it unreasonable for the authorities to have taken the view that this statement did not form an adequate basis for such action, even taking into account that Mr McBride undoubtedly received injuries .
The investigation into MM Kelly and Kearns' allegations was instituted two days after a letter from the applicants' solicitor to the local Divisional Commander was received . Both applicants however refused to co-operate with the investigating officer . The Commission notes, nevertheless, that there is no evidence that any attempt was made to obtain the necessary details of the allegations through th- applicants' solicitor . Since two formal complaints were submitted by him, the Commission considers that i t
- 82 -
would have been preferable that some contact with him should have been made, because'the possibility that statements could have been obtained in his presence or tnrough his co-operation should not have been overlooked . . The investigation, although open to some criticism, appears otherwise to have been reasonably thorough, the investigating officer having taken or been supplied with statements by a total of 44 police officers over a period of about two months . He also received statements from a number of soldiers and investigated the medical aspects of the cases . The Commission notes that in accordance with the normal practice the statements by the soldiers were taken by members of the military police . The Commission considers that it might have been preferable, particularly in the circumstances of these cases where there is no dispute that at some stage some degree of force was used during the arrest by the army, that the investigating officer should himself have taken statements from the soldiers involved . It is not however possible to establish whether the investigation was in fact hampered by this division of responsibility, since neithe r
the report nor the original statements have been made available . The Commission further notes that the investigating officer's conclusion, namely that he had found "no evidence that any member of the security forces had been guilty of illtreating Kearns and Kelly . . ." was too categorical in th e '_ight of the medical evidence that both men had had some infuries . Finally, the Commission notes that it is not clear from the evidence whether the investigation of the allegation that drugs had been administered to the two men was suCficiently thorough in view of its serious nature . In view of all the circumstances the Commission does not however consider that the investigating officer's conclusion in relation to this allegation can be criticised . The Commission would finally observe, with regard to all the three investigations which it has examined in detail, that !t does not appear that the officers who carried out such investigations were membere of,the Criminal Investigation Department, despite the fact that they were investigating alleged criminal offences . Two of them, at least, had never serve d
in the CID . Nevertheless the Commission notes that each of the officers heard was a senior officer with experience in normal criminal matters, although not in the CID, and in the investigation of complaints . Looking at the whole evidence the Commission concludes that the investigations carried out were, as it has noted, open to criticism on certain grounds and that at least some of them wore Sncomplete . A substantial amount of time and effort was nevertheless devoted in each case to establishing the truth or otherwise of the applicants' allegations and, in four of th e
- 83 -
cases this was done despite the refusal of the applicants to co-operate . In circumstances where all the members of the security forces involved denied all knowledge of the allegations, this refusal to co-operate effectively excluded the possibility of criminal or disciplinary action . It should also be noted that these investigations were carried out at a time when the security forces were under considerable pressure, and when, it appears, false or exaggerated allega. In the three tions were often made for propaganda purposes cases where the applicants did co-operate, the persons they had been able to identify were prosecuted, despite the denial of all those directly involved of any knowledge of the assaults on the applicants . Reference has been made to lack of confidence in police investigations as a possible reason for the refusal of the four applicants to co-operate . The Commission considers it established on the evidence it has heard that there was , in some quarters at least, a genuine lack of confidence in the system for investigating complaints against the security forces . . It may well be that had a completely independen tinvestigationsytembeni existenc,greatrco-peratio n would have been obtained from complainants in cases such as Lhe present . The Commission further considers that in a situation such as that existing in Northern Ireland, where the police force is under attack, an investigation into allegations against the police force which is carried out by members of that force, will inevitably suffer difficulties and be open to criticism . It is however relevant to note that only two of the four applicants who did not co-operate mentioned lack of confidence as a reason . The Commission considers that if they wished action to be taken on their complaints, they should have given reasonable co-operation to the steps the authorities took to investigate them . In considering the steps taken by the authorities to prevent the occurrence or repetition of acts of ill-treatment, the Commission has also taken into account the fact that some prosecution of members of the security forces did occur, although the number was small . It does not, however, consider that the failure to take such action in four of the present cases can be aLtributed to anyfailure to take reasonable action on the part of the prosecuting authorities . Another safeguard wai the fact that detainees at police holding centres were medically examined at the beginning and end of their detention Lhere . RÃ©gular supervisory visits to the centre were also made by the officer in overall charge, although he was apparentl y on leave at the relevant time . The Commission has also already referred to the facilities which were madr availablP for the medical examination in custody of all the present aapl'-cants .
Having regard to the steps which were taken to prevent ill-treatment, the Commission considers that it has not been established that any ill-treatment which the present applicants may have suffered was condoned or tolerated by persons i n
- 84 -
authority otherthan those directly involved with the applicants at the relevant times . If the applicants' allegations are correct, and on this the Commission makes nc finding except insofar as they are undisputed, it is clear that ir. each case there must have been tolerance and "covering-up" by persons present at the relevant times who would have had knowledg e of what occurred . Such situations may occur at times i n normal circumstances and are more likely to oc ur in a situatio n of civil strife when the security forces are under attack . Even if they occur repeatedly, this does not, of itself, riecessarily indicate that the higher authorities tolerate the i1 .-treatment . Such a situation may pose serious problems to the higher authorities, but provided they take reasonable steps to deal with it, they cannot be said to have tolerated it . The fact that ill-treatment may he tolerated, at the middle or lower levels of the chain of command, for example at the level of an officer in charge of a police station o fnnamiltrypos,dentihop fteCmiso necessarily mean thÃ¢t the state concerned has failed to take the required steps to comply with its substantive obligations under Art . 3 of the Convention . Existing remedies which provide redress fur the individual victims of ill-treatment are not therefore necessarily rendered inadequar.e in such a situation . The Commission considers that, in the circumstances of the present cases, the possibility of obtaining compensation through a civil action for damages, constituted an adequat ermdyfothspecivolatnsfheCovtinalge d t l y each of the epplicants, when seen in the light of the steps which were taken by the respondent Government to fulfil its duty towards .the applicants to prevent the occurrence or repetition of acts such as those alleged . The Commissio nhas lreadyfoundtha ithasnotbenestablishedinayo f t.he present cases that this remedy did not work effectively in practice . VI .
THE REQIIE ."+ T FOR DECLARATIVE RELIE F
In their final observations the applicants have howeve . compensation as part of theerobsevdthay notsugh relief requested in the presentâ¢ applications and have submitted that their request for declarative relief, in the form of a declaration that they have each been victims of acts, and an e.dministrative practice, in violation of Art . 3,was properly before the Commission even if compensation was corisidered an effective remedy . However an applicant under Art . 25 of the Convention may not ask that the Commission express ariy opinion on the merits of his application, other than for the purpose of determining whether it is manifestly ill-founded or not, unless he has complied with the rule as to exhaustion of remedies and failed to obtain an adequate remedy .
- 85 -
YII . LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE FIND IN GS AS TO REMEDIE S Since the civil proceedings brought by the applicants Carlin, Kelly and Kearns are, as at the date of this decision, still pending their applications, insofar as they allege that they have been victims of specific acts, as distinct from an administrative practice, in violation of Art . 3, much be rejected under Art . 27 (3) of the Convention, on the ground that they have not exhausted domestic remedies, and have not shown the existence of any special circumstances which would have absolved them from the duty of doing so .
The applicants Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy and McBride have, however, received compensation in settlement of their domestic actions without pursuing them to trial . Insofar as the sums .paid were apparently reasonably related to the severity of the injuries suffered and included, in three cases et,leaet, a substantial punitive element, it might be said that these applicants having received reasonable compensation by using the remedies available, could no longer claim to be victims of any violation of the Convention . Their applications, insofar as the applicants allege that they have been victims of specific acts in violation of Art . 3, would therefore fall to be rejected under Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . The applicants have however suggested that the settlements inuat be seen in the context of the evidence which would have heen available in court and appeared to imply that difficulties of proof might have influenced at least the applicant McBrid e to accept a lower sum than he would otherwise have obtained . The Commission also notes that each of these applicants renounced his right to have the issue of liability determined by a court and thus renounced the possibility of obtaining a judgment on the merits in his favour . It might therefore be said on the other hand, that by renouncing any possibility of obtaining Iiigher compensation and a judgment on the merits, these applicants have failed to exhaust the remedies available, in which event their applications would, insofar as they allege that the applicants have been victims of specific acts in violation of Art . 3, fall to be rejected under Art . 27 (3) .
The Commission refers tQ its observations concerning its task at this stage, and notes that insofar as the questions of admissibility has been joined to the merits, it now falls to be determined under Articles 26 and 27 by an ordinary vote decided by the majority of the Commission . VIII .
CONCLUSIONS UNDER ARTICLES 26 and 2 7 For the reasons stated above, the Commission :
Finds that .the applications by the applicants Carli n (No . 5580/72), Kelly (No . 5582/72) and Kearns o . 5583/72), ineofar as the apcants allege that t ey ave bee n
- 86 -
victims of specific acts in violation of Art . 3, are in admissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of iFomestic remedies, the applicants not having shown that there were any special circumstances which absolved them from exhausting the remedies available ; B . Finds that the applications by the applicants Donnelly (No . 5577/72), Brad~leY (No . 5578/72), Duffy (No . 5 79/72) and McBride (NO . 55ti1/72), insofar as the applicants allege that they have been victims of specific acts in violation of Art . 3, are inadmissible on the groun d that they have, by using the local remedies available, received and accepted compensation and have, in the framework of the settlement of their domestic cases, renounced further use of local remedies .
IX .
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 2 9
In its original decision on the admissibility of these applications the Commission has already declared admissible the issue raised by the applicants that they were victims of an administrative practice in violation of Art . 3 . The Commission has previously defined the essential elements of such a practice as being the repetition of acts and official tolerance ( see the "Greek Case", Yearbook 12, pp . 195-196) . It also observed in that case that the notion was closely linked with the principle of the exhaustion of domestic remedies ( ibid ., p . 194), and stated that where "there is a practice of non-observance of certain Convention provisions, the remedies prescribed will of necessity be side-stepped or rendered inadequate . Thus if there was an administrative practice of torture or ill-treatment, judicial remedies prescribed would tend to be rendered ineffective by the difficulty of securing probative evidence, and administrative enquiries would either not be instituted or, if they were, would be likely to be half-hearted and incomplete" . It is true that an administrative practice in violation of the Convention may be of such a nature as to render the available domestic remedies ineffective or inadequate . Nowever ri ot every practice in violation of t he Convention will necessarily have such an effect . Thus where no tolerance of ill-treÃ¢tment by the higher - authorities of the State has been shown to exist but the possibility exists that ill-treatment lias been tolerated at the middle or lower level of the chai n of command, the Commission must ascertain whether, having regard to matters such as possible difficulty in obtaining probative . evidence, the remedies available were effective in practic e and whether, having regard to the steps taken by the higher authorities to carry out their duty towards the individuals r.oncerned to prevent the occurrence of repe ;ition of acts of i ll-treatment, they can be considered adequate . In the present cases the Commission has already , â¢xamin - d the factors which it considers relevant to the efl'er.tiveness and adequacy of the available rerc.edies an d
- F,7 -
lias concluded that the possibility of obtaining compensation in a civil action constituted in principle an adequate and effective remedy for the violations of Art . 3 alleged by each applicant . It has also found that it has not been established that this remedy was rendered ineffective or inadequate, by an administrative practice or otherwise . These findings do not exclude the possibility that at some plac e or level a practice in violation of the Convention existed, but the Commission does not find it necessary to examine this question since in its view the same grounds of inadmissibility apply to this part of the application as apply to the applicants' allegations that they have each been the victim of specific acts in violation of Art . 3 . The provisions o f Arts . 26 and 27 apply to all applications submitted under ,1rt . 25, whether the breach in question is alleged to be the result of an administrative practice or not . Only if it had been eetablished in the present applications that the existing remedies had been rendered ineffective or inadequate, whether as the result of an administrative practice or otherwise, could the applicants' allegations that they have been victims of violations of the Convention have been considered admissible .
X.
CONCLUSION UNDER ARTICLE 2 9
The Commission is therefore unanimously of the opinion that this part of the applications should be rejected under Art . 29 of the Convention since the grounds for th e inadmissibility of the applicants' allegations that they have been victims of specific acts in violence of Art . 3 are equally applicable in relation to their allegations that they have been victims of an administrative practice . For these reasons . the Commissio n 1 . Acting under Arts . 26 and 27 of the Convention, DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBLE insofar as the app ican s a ege that they have been victims of specific acts in violation of Art . 3 ; 2 . Acting under Art . 29 of the Convention, unanimously REJECTS THE APPLICATIONS insofar as they have already been dec are a misslb e .
-
BE
-
(TRADUCTION) LE CONTENU DES REQUETE S Les sept requÃ©rants (Gerard Donnelly, Gerard Bradley, Edward Duffy, John Carlin, Francis McBride, Anthony Kelly et Thomas Kearns) sont ressortissants du Royaume-Uni . Ils ont prÃ©tendu dans leurs requÃ©tes qu'aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ©s, Ã des dates diffÃ«rentes en avril 1972, ils avaient Ã©tÃ© soumis par des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur Ã des traitements contraires Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . Les requÃ©rants ont dÃ©clarÃ© par ailleurs que les traitemente qui leur avait Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©s s'inscrivent dans le cadre d'une pratique administrative systÃ©matique consistant Ã encourager ou autoriser le recours Ã la torture ou Ã des traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants contraires Ã l'article 3 .
Un rÃ©sumÃ© assez dÃ©taillÃ© des griefs et des prÃ©tentions formulâ¬s initialement par les requÃ©rants figure dans le text . edlaÃ©cisonredupalComisne5avrl1973() Tout au long de la procÃ©dure devant la Commission, les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© reprÃ©sentÃ©s par M .C . Kevin Boyle, avocat Ã Belfast, et M . Nurst Hannum, A .B ., J .D ., de Belfast . A la date de l'introduction de leurs requâ¬tes, trois des requÃ©rants, MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, avaient dÃ©jÃ entamÃ© des procÃ©dures civiles contre les autoritÃ©s comp8tentes pour obtenir rÃ©paration des sÃ©vices prÃ©tendument subis . Ils avaient assignÃ© ces autoritÃ©s le 16 mai 1972 . Les quatre autres requÃ©rants ont intentÃ© des procÃ©dures civiles en 1974 . Le requÃ©rant Carlin a assignÃ© les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes en octobre 1974, le requÃ©rant McBride en aoQt 1974 et les requÃ©rants Kelly et Kearns en avril 1974 . Les actions intentÃ©es par les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy ont fait l'objet, en juillet 1975, d'un rÃ¨glement amiable entre les parties, en vertu duquel MM . Donnelly et Bradley ont obtenu chacun 5â¢000 livres et N . Duffy 6 .000 livrea de dommages-intÃ©r=ts, ainsi que .le ^^mba.irsement de leurs frais de justice . Aux termes des rÃ¨glements amiables, chacun des requÃ©rants dÃ©clarait, d'une part, reconnaitre, en acceptant la somme Ã lui allouÃ©e, qu'il Ã©tait ainsi fait pleinement droit Ã toutes les prÃ©tentions qu'il avait fait valoir .ians son action et, d'autre part, libÃ©rer entiÃ¨rement les dÃ©fendeurs de toute s
les prÃ©tentions contenues dans sa demande ir .troductive d'instance ou liÃ©es Ã des points allÃ©guÃ©s dans cette demande . Par ailleurs, chacundes requÃ©rants s'engageait Ã n'inten :er aucune autre action
(1) Recueil de dÃ©cisions, Vol . 43, p . 122 .
- 89 -
contre la Couronne ou diverses autres autoritÃ©s ou personnes au sujet d'Ã©vÃ©nements survenus pendant la pÃ©riode ou ils prÃ©tendaient avcir subi des sÃ©vices ou au sujet des points invoquÃ©s dans leur demande introductive d'instanr.e . L'action intentÃ©e par le requÃ©rant McBride a fait l'obje.t, en novembre 1975, d'un rÃ¨glement amiable, aux termes duquel M . McBride reconnaissait, en acceptant la some de 301 livres Ã lui offerte ainsi que le remboursement de ses frais de justice, qu'i1 Ã©tait ainsi fait pleinement droit Ã sa prÃ©tention . Cette offre n'Ã©tait assortie d'aucune reconnaissance de responsabilitÃ© de la part des autoritÃ©s . Les actions civiles intentÃ©es par les trois autres requÃ©rants sont encore pendantes Ã la date de la prÃ©sente dÃ©cision . Tout au long de la prÃ©sente procÃ©dure, les requÃ©rants ont soutenu que dans la mesure oÃ¹ ils prÃ©tendent avoir Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3, les dispositions de l'article 26 de la Convention exigeant l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes ne sont pas applicables . Par ailleurs, ils ont prÃ©tendu que dans la mesure oÃ¹ ils affirment aussi avoir Ã©tÃ© victimes d'actes particuliers contraires Ã l'article 3, les voies de recours internes qui leur sont ouvertes ne sont ni efficaces ni suffisantes, et que les dispositions pertinentes de l'article 26 ne peuvent donc s'appliquer en aucun cas .
PROCEDURE DEVANT LA COMMISSION Le 5 avril 1973, la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© les requÃªtes recevables . Elle a considÃ©rÃ© que les prÃ©sents requÃ©rants avaient fourni "des commencements de preuve de l'existence d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã L'article 3 et du fait qu'ils avaient Ã©tÃ© victimes de cette pratique" . La Commission a esti :tÃ©, en consÃ©quence, que la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes ne s'appliquait pas Ã cette partie des requÃ©tes . La Commission a examinÃ© ensuite les requÃªtes pour autant qu'elles soulÃ¨vent la question de savoir si chaque reqâ¢jÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© victime d'actes particuliers, distincts d'une pratique administrative, contraires Ã l'article La Commission a .dÃ©clarÃ© qu'en principe les requÃ©rants Ã©taient tenus d'Ã©puiser les voies de rÃ©cours internes qui leur Ã©taient ouvertes Ã cet Ã©gard . Toutefois, elle a estimÃ© que la question de savoir s'il ex'-stait des recours efficaces en l'espÃ¨ce ne pouvait pas â¬tre tranchÃ©e sans un examen des requÃ©tes au fond . En consÃ©quence, elle a "joint au fond toute question relative aux voies de recours qui auraient dÃ» â¬tre â¬ouisÃ©es par chaque requÃ©rant, en tant que victime allÃ©guÃ©e d'actes particuliers, distincts d'une pratique administrative, v'-olant l'article 3" .
Les requÃ©rants ont soumis leurs cbservations Ã©crites sur le ford de l'affaire le 25 mai 1973 . Le 3ouvernement â¢iÃ©fendeur a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã soumettre ses c5ser~ations en rÃ©ponse avant le 3 : jâ¢Jillet 1973 .
- 9o -
Dans une lettre du 17 juillet 1973, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a prÃ©sentÃ© certaines conclusions au sujet de la dÃ©cision de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© et a fait des propositions quant d la procÃ©dure A suivre ultÃ©rieurement dans les prÃ©sentes affaires . La Commission a pris acte de la lettre du Gouvernement le 19 juillet 1973, et dÃ©cidÃ© d'inviter les conseils des requÃ©rants Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit leurs observations sur cette lettre . Au mÃ©me moment, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© de fixer la procÃ©dure ultÃ©rieure Ã sa session suivante et,dans l'intervalle, de suspendre le cours du dÃ©lai (Ã©chÃ©ant le 31 juillet 1973) pour le dÃ©pÃ´t des observations Ã©crites du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur sur le fond . Les observations des requÃ©rants, du 14 aoÃ»t, ont Ã©tÃ© reÃ§ues le 20 aoÃ»t puis cammuniquÃ©es au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur pour information . Dans une lettre du 8 octobre 1973, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a prÃ©sentÃ© ses observationa sur la lettre des requÃ©rants et a soumis des arguments supplÃ©mentaires Ã l'appui de ses propositions concernant la procÃ©dure . Le 8 octobre, la Commission a dÃ©battu de sa procÃ©dure ultÃ©rieure et dÃ©cidÃ© de ne pas suivre la procÃ©dure proposÃ©e par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . Elle a dÃ©cidÃ© de maintenir l'invitation qu'elle avait faite Ã celui-ci de soumettre ses ' observations sur le fond de l'affaire . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soumis ees observations le 18 janvier 1974 . Le 25 mai 1974, la Commission a dÃ©battu Ã nouveau de la procÃ©dure applicable Ã ces requÃªtes et dÃ©cidÃ© d'entendre les dÃ©positions des requÃ©rants . Elle a dÃ©cidÃ©, par ailleurs, d'informer les parties qu'elle avait l'intention d'entendre en mÃªme temps, si possible, tout autre tÃ©moin dont elle estimerait la dÃ©position pertinente quant Ã la question des mauvais traitements prÃ©tendument eubis par les requÃ©rants eux-mÃ©mes . Elle a donc invitÃ© les parties Ã lui proposer, dPs que possible, et en tout cas avant le 8 juillet 1974, une liste de tÃ©moins Ã entendre ou tout autre Ã©lÃ©ment de preuve Ã recueillir . Elle a aussi demandÃ© aux parties d'indiquer briÃ©vement les points ou les faits sur lesquels chaque tÃ©moin devrait Ãªtre entendu . Les deux .parties ont Ã©tÃ© avisÃ©es des dÃ©cisions de la Commission par lettre du u juin 1974 . Dane une let re du 4 juil et 1974, les conseils de s requÃ©rants ont soumis une liste de tÃ©moins qu'ils se proposaient de faire entendre . Cette liste comprenait les sept requÃ©rants et sept autres tÃ©moins nommÃ©ment dÃ©signÃ©s, dont cinq mÃ©decins, proposÃ©s par les requÃ©rants . Par ailleurs, les requÃ©rants ont suggÃ©rÃ© que la Commission entende d'autres mÃ©decins qui les avaient examinÃ©s pour le compte du Gouvernement, mais don t ils n'avaient pas pu dÃ©couvrir le nom . En outre, les requÃ©rants ont demandÃ© Ã la Commission d'exiger du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur qu'il produise "tous les dossiers mÃ©dicaux et autres dont il a connaissance et qui concernent les sept requÃ©rants" .
- 91 -
Cette liste a Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©e par tÃ©lex au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur le 10 juillet 1974 . Le 12 ju"_llet 1974, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a avisÃ© la Commission par tÃ©lex que deux des requÃ©rants, MM . Bradley et Duffy, se trouvaient en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive par application de la loi de 1973 sur l'Ã©tat d'urgence en Irland e du Nord, et qu'un autre requÃ©rant, M . McBride, purgeait une peine de prison . Selon le Gouvernement, la Commission avait sans doute conscience des considÃ©rations dont il devait tenir compte, en raison de l'Ã©tat d'urgence en Irlande du Nord, pour apprÃ©cier la proposition tendant Ã faire entendre des personnes dÃ©tenues . Par ailleurs, il a informÃ© la Commission que, dans l'Ã©ventualitÃ© d'une audition par des DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s, il se verrait obligÃ© de demander que certaines mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© soient prises en faveur des membre des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© qu'il proposerait de faire tÃ©moigner . Dans le mÃ©me tÃ©lex, il a attirÃ© l'attention sur les dÃ©marches entreprises par certains des requÃ©rants en ce qui concerne l'exercice des voies de recours internes . Il a demandÃ© Ã la Commission soit de dÃ©clarer les requÃ©tes irrecevables, conformÃ©ment Ã certaines conclusions figurant dans ses observations sur le fond, soit d'offrir la possibilitÃ© de prÃ©senter des arguments supplÃ©mentaires sur ce sujet, soit encore, Ã titre subsidiaire, d'ajourner la poursuite de la procÃ©dure jusqu' Ã ce que les requÃ©rants aient Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes qui leur Ã©taient ouvertes .
. Le 16 juillet 1974, la Commission a dÃ©battu Ã nouveau de la procÃ©dure applicable en l'espPce . Elle a dÃ©cidÃ© de communiquer aux requÃ©rants le texte du tÃ©lex du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur du 12 juillet 1974, en les invitant Ã soumettre par Ã©crit, avant le : 5 aoÃ¹t 1974, leurs observations Ã©ventuelle s en rÃ©ponse . Par a!Ileurs, e11e a dÃ©cidÃ© d'inviter les requÃ©rants Ã lui communiquer en mÃ©me temps des renseignements sur les dÃ©marches qu'ils aâ¢ :aient entreprises pour Ã©puiser les voie s de recours internes . La Commission a aussi confirmÃ© qu'elle souhaitait entendre les dÃ©positions des sept requÃ©rants, et elle a dÃ©cidÃ© que ces dÃ©positions seraient entendues par trois DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s, er. octobre 1974 ., en un lieu et Ã une date Ã fixer aprÃ¨s consultation des parties . Elle a aussi invitÃ© le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur Ã faire dÃ¨s que possible des propositions quant au lieu oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus seraient entendus e t aux dispositior.s Ã prendre en vue de cette audition . Par ailleurs, elle a dÃ©cidÃ© que les sept tÃ©moins citÃ©s par les requÃ©rants seraient ente-.dus en un lieu et Ã une date qui seraient fixÃ© s
par les DÃ©lÃ©gâ¢jÃ©s aprÃ¨s consultation des parties . En outre, elle a invitÃ© le Douvernement dÃ©fendeur Ã faire connaitre, avan t le 1er septembre :974, le nom de tout autre mÃ©decin susceptible d'avoir exami .^.Ã© ies requÃ©rants pour le compte des autoritÃ© s Ã l'Ã©poque des fa'-`_s, et Ã soumettre par Ã©crit ses observations sur la demande des requÃ©rants tendant Ã obtenir communication de certains doci^ents . En dernier lieu, elle a autorisÃ© les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s Ã fa'_re appel, s'ils le jugeaient utile, Ã des tÃ©moin s
- 92 -
ou des Ã©lÃ©mÃ©nts de preuve supplÃ©mentaires . La Commission a aussi rappelÃ© que, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 28 (b) de la Convention, elle Ã©tait 3 la disposition des parties en vue de parvenir Ã un r2glement amiable . Les dÃ«cisions de la Commission ont Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©es aux parties par lettre du 19 juillet 19711 . Le texte du tÃ©lex du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur du 12 juillet 1974 a Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ© aux requÃ©rants Ã la mÃ©me date . Dans une lettre du 6 aoÃ»t 1974, les conseils des requÃ©rants ont donnÃ© certains renseignements sur les dÃ©marches faites par les requÃ©rants en vue d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes, et ont prÃ©sentÃ© des observations sur le tÃ©lex du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur du 12 juillet 1974 . A diverses reprises, en aoÃ»t et en septembre 1974, les reprÃ©sentants des requÃ©rants ont aussi communiquÃ© des renseignements sur les dÃ©marches entreprises par leurs clients respectifs en vue d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes .
Dans l'intervalle, des consultations ont eu lieu entre les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s, par l'organe du SecrÃ©taire de la Commission, et les parties au sujet des dispositions Ã prendre en vue de l'audition des requÃ©rants et autres tÃ©moins ; des dispositions ont Ã©tÃ© prises en vue d'entendre Ã Strasbourg, L partir d u 31 octobre 1974, les requÃ©rants se trouvant en libertÃ© et les autres tÃ©moins proposÃ©s par les requÃ©rants . Par lettre d u 29 aoÃ»t 1974, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a informÃ© la Commission qu'il n'avait pas fini d'examiner tous les problÃ¨mes liÃ©s Ã l'audition des requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus . Il a aussi avisÃ© la Commission, d'une part, qu'il souhaiterait probablement que des mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© soient prises en faveur des tÃ©moins qu'il se proposait de faire entendre et, d'autre part, que ces tÃ©moins n e pourraient pas se rendre Ã Strasbourg pour y Ãªtre entendus . Le 1er octobre 1974, la Commission a dÃ©battu S nouveau de la procÃ©dure applicable en l'espÃ¨ce . Elle 3 aussi pris note, d'une part, des renseignements et observations communiquÃ©s par les requÃ©rants Ã la suite des demandes qu'elle avait faite s le 16 juillet 197 1 ; et, d'autre part, des dispositions qui avaient Ã©tÃ© prises avec les parties en vue de l'audition . Elle a pris acte aussi de la position du Gouvernement dâ¢-fendeur au sujet, d'une part, des dispositions Ã© .prendre en vue de l'audition des requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus et, d'autre part, des propositions du Gouvernement relatives aux tÃ©moins 3 faire entendre . Par lettre du 1er octobre 1974, le Couvernement dÃ©fendeur a communiquÃ© Ã la Commission les noms de cinq mÃ©decins qui avaient examinÃ© un ou plusieurs requÃ©rants d l'Ã©poque des faits, et dont l'intervention n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© nientionnÃ©e pa r les requÃ©rants . Par ailleurs, il a joint Ã ces lettres des copies d'expertises faites par trois de ces mÃ©decins, et a informÃ© la Commission que ces trois mÃ©decins aourraien : venir tÃ©moigner Ã Strasbourg . Par ailleurs, il a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'ur: des mÃ©decins nommÃ©ment dÃ©signÃ©s par les requÃ©rants, Ã savoir un mÃ©decin de l'armÃ©e, ne pourrait pas venir tÃ©moigner Ã Strasbourg .
- 93 -
Copies de la lettre du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur et des rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale ont Ã©tÃ© comrr.uniquÃ©es aux requÃ©rant s le 4 octobre 1974 . Suite Ã d'autres consultations avec les parties, le dÃ©but de l'audition a Ã©tÃ© reportÃ© du 31 octobre a u
1er novembre 1974 . Dans une lettre du 31 octobre 1974, le Gouvernemen t dÃ©fendeur a fait parvenir des copies des rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale Ã©tablie par les autres mÃ©decins qu'il avait nommÃ©ment dÃ©signÃ©s dans sa lettre du Ser octobre 1974 . Dans uneautre lettre, Ã© galement du 31 octobre 1974, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il souhaitait faire des propositions au sujet de l'audition de tÃ©moins et de la production d'Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve Ã dÃ©charge mais que la nature prÃ©cise de ces preuves dÃ©pendrait nÃ©cessairement de la nature de celles qui seraient prÃ©sentÃ©es au nom des requÃ©rants . Il a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il ferait part de ses propositions Ã la Commission aussitÃ´t que poseible aprÃ¨s l'audition . Il a informÃ© la Commission que, sous rÃ©serve des impÃ©ratifs de sÃ©curitÃ© et de la situation politique du moment, il s'efforcerait, si la Commission le lui demandait,de faire en sorte que le s requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus soient entendus personnellement . Par ailleurs, il a demandÃ© que certaines mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© soient prises pour l'audition des tÃ©moins proposÃ©s par lui . Dans une lettre du 4 novembre 1974, les requÃ©rants ont prÃ©sentÃ© certaines observations au sujet des mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© rÃ©clamÃ©es par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur en faveur de ses tÃ©moins . Ils ont aussi fait des observations sur un certain nombr e d'autres questions de procÃ©dure . Les tÃ©moins ont Ã©tÃ© entendus Ã Strasbourg par trois DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s de la Commission (1), du 1er au 6 novembre . Les quatre requÃ«rants en libertÃ©, Ã savoir MM . Donnelly, Kearns, Kelly et Carlin, ont Ã©tÃ© entendus, ainsi que sept autres personnes nommÃ©es par les requÃ©rants et dont les tÃ©moignages se rapportaient Ã l'ensemble des sept affaires . Avant l'ouverture de l'audition, lesDÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s ont invitÃ© les parties Ã examiner le point de savoir s'il Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire de faire tÃ©moigner oralement deux mÃ©decins au sujet des cas d e
MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, ou si les parties pouvaient accepter que la Commission se contente de leur dÃ©position Ã©crite . A u cours de l'audition, les parties sont convenues qu'i1 n'Ã«tait pas nÃ©cessaire d'entendre ces tÃ©moins oralement, Ã condition que leur dÃ«position soit recueillie par Ã©crit et que les deux parties aient toute libertÃ© de faire des observations sur ces dÃ©positions, comme si elles avaient Ã©tÃ© faites oralement .
(1) MM . Opsahl, Daver et !Jdrgaard .
- 94 -
A l'audience, les requÃ©rants ont proposÃ© qu'un tâ¬moin, dont le nom ne figurait pas sur leur liste, dÃ©pose au sujet des dÃ©marches faites par MM . Kearns et Kelly en vue d'Ã©puiser les voiee de recours internes . Cette proposition aâ¬tÃ© acceptÃ©e par les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s, et le tÃ©moin, un solicitor, a fait sa dÃ©position .
A la clÃ´ture de l'audience, le 6 novembre, le s DÃ©l guÃ©s ont demandÃ© que le Gouvernem nt dÃ©fendeur produis e un certain nombre de tÃ©moins . Ils ont aussi demandÃ© au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur de fournir, dÃ¨s que possible, des renseignements aur les dispositions qu'il proposait de prendre en vue de l'audition des requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus, ainsi que la liste des tÃ©moins qu'il proposait, accompagnÃ©e de leurs dÃ©clarations d'intention (proof of evidence) et d'informatione sur les mesuree de sÃ©curitÃ© envisagÃ©es . En outre, ils ont avisÃ© les parties que la lettre des requÃ©rants du 4 novembre 1974 serait soumise Ã la prochaine session de la Commission plÃ©niÃ¨re et ils ont dÃ©clarÃ© compter que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r ferait Ã©ventuellement des observations dans l'intervalle . D'autres consultations ont ensuite eu lieu entre le SecrÃ©taire de la Commission et le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur au sujet des dispositions Ã prendre en vue de l'audition des requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus et des tÃ©moins proposÃ©s par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur ; au cours de ces consultations, celui-ci a confirmÃ© qu'une audition des requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus pourrait avoir lieu . Dans une lettre du 11 dÃ©cembre 1974, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a formulÃ© un certain nombre d'observations sur la lettre des requÃ©rants du 4 novembre 1974 . Le 12 dÃ©cembre 1974, la Commission a examinÃ© le premier rapport intÃ©rimaire des DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s concernant l'audition des tÃ©moins et a dÃ©battu de la procÃ©dure ultÃ©rieure . Elle a dÃ©cidÃ© d'autoriser les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s et le SecrÃ©taire Ã prendre les dispositions nâ¬cessaires, aprÃ¨s consultation des parties, en vu e de l'audition des trois requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus . Par ailleurs, elle a dÃ©cidÃ© de demander au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur de trouver un lieu adÃ©quat pour l'audition des tÃ©moins proposÃ©s par lui .
Elle fl autorisÃ© les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s Ã prendre toute dÃ©cision nÃ©cessaire au sujet, d'une part, du lieu et de la date de l'audition des tÃ©moins proposÃ©s par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur et,d'autre part, de la procÃ©dure Ã suivre pour cette audition . En dernier lieu, la Commiesion a demandÃ© aux parties de tenir le SecrÃ©taire informÃ© de tout fait nouveau concernant l'exercice des voie s de recours internes par les requÃ©rants . Ces dÃ©cisions ont Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©es aux parties par lettre du 23 dÃ©cembre 1974 . D'autres consultations ont eu lieu ultÃ©rieurement entr e les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s, par l'organe du SecrÃ©taire de la Commission, et les parties au sujet des dispositions Ã prendre pour l'auditicn des trois requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus et des tÃ©moins proposÃ©s par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . Les dates des auditions ont Ã©tÃ© fixÃ©es provisoirement au cours de ces consultations . Le 27 mai 1975, l'Agent du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a avisÃ© le SecrÃ©taire qu e
- 95 -
le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur envisageait de citer enviro n 31 tÃ©moins, ce qui obligerait Ã prolonger l'audition au-de13 d'une semaine . Les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s ont examinÃ© la situation le mÃ©me jotiret sont convenus qu'il n'Ã©tait pas possible de prolonger l'audition au-delÃ d'une semaine . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© par tÃ©lÃ©phone de la position des DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s, et il a avisÃ© le SecrÃ©taire qu'il soumettrait une liste rÃ©duite de tÃ©moins qu'i1 souhaitait en tout cas faire entendre . Par lettre en date du 10 juin 1975, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a confirmÃ© que les dispositions avaient Ã©tÃ© prises pour l'audition des tÃ©moins proposÃ©s par lui, et il a soumis des listes comprenant au total 70 tÃ©moins qu'il proposait de faire entendre ou dont il proposait de communiquer les dÃ©clarations solennelles faitee sous serment (affidavits) . Il a soumis avec sa lettre un total de 34 dÃ©positions faites eous serment (sworn statements) et dÃ©clarations solennelles faites sous serment, et a dÃ©clarÃ© que les dÃ©positions ou les dÃ©claratione eolennelles faites sous serment par les autres tÃ©moins seraient communiquÃ©es dÃ¨s que possible . Sur un total d e 70 tÃ©moins figurant sur lee listes, 34 ont soumis, ou devaient soumettre, des dÃ©positions faites sous serment et 36 des dÃ©clarations solennelles faites sous serment . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'en rÃ©ponse aux allÃ©gations particuliÃ©res formulÃ©es dans les sept affaires, il soumettait les dÃ©clarations solennelles sous serment et souhaitait citer les tÃ©moins dont les dÃ©clarations figuraient sur la liste . Toutefois, il a communiquÃ© une liste supplÃ©mentaire de 27 tÃ©moins qu'il souhaitait en tout cas faire entendre s'il apparaissait nÃ©cessaire aux DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s d'opÃ©rer une sÃ©lection parmi les 34 tÃ©moins dont les dÃ©positions faites sous serment figuraient sur les listes . Il a dÃ©clarÃ© que si une sÃ©lection Ã©tait faite, il proposerait de faire Ã©tablir par les tÃ©moins qui ne seraient pas entendus des dÃ©clarations solennelles sous serment confirmant leurs dires, et de verser ces dÃ©clarations au dossier . Il a demandÃ© qu'il soit dÃ»ment tenu compte des dÃ©clarations des tÃ©moins qui ne seraient pas entendus . Par ailleurs, il a dÃ©clarÃ©, au sujet de la dÃ©cision de la Commission du 25 mai 1974 d'inviter les parties Ã proposer des tÃ©moins, que les tÃ©moins proposÃ©s seraient uniquement des personnes qui dÃ©poseraien t sur les faits relatifs aux sept cas et que, si la Commission envisageait de poursuivre l'examen d'une question relative Ã l'existence allÃ©guÃ©e d'une pratique administrative, il se rÃ©serverait le droit de produire des tÃ©moins supplÃ©mentaires et d'autres Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve . Par d'autres lettres en date des 13 et 17 juin 1975, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soumis les autres dÃ©positions et dÃ©clarations solennelles faites sous serment mentionnÃ©es dans sa liste, ainsi qu'une dÃ©claration solennelle faite sous serment par un tÃ©moin supplÃ©mentaire qui ne figurait pas sur la liste initiale .
- 96 -
Les auditions prÃ©vues ont eu lieu du 23 au 28 juin 1975 . Lea 23 et 24 juin, trois DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s (1) ont entendu les dÃ©positions des trois requÃ©rants dÃ©tenus, MM . Bradley, Duffy et McBride, ainsi que d'un tÃ©moin proposÃ© par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, Ã la prison de Maze, en Irlande du Nord . Les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s ont entendu 26 tÃ©moins supplÃ©mentaires proposÃ©s par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur dans une autre localitÃ© du Royaume-Uni, du 25 a u
28 juin . Les 27 tÃ©moins entendus ont Ã©tÃ© ceux qui figuraient sur la liste rÃ©duite de tÃ©moins communiquÃ©e par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur le 10 juin 1975 . A l'audience, les parties ont soulevÃ© un certain nombre de questions de procÃ©dure relatives notamment aux mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© demandÃ©es par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur pour l'audition de ses tÃ©moins, ainsi qu'Ã la valeur probante des dÃ©positions et des dÃ«clarations solennelles faites sous sermÃ©nt, soumises par le Oouvernement dÃ©fendeur, et Ã«manant de tÃ©moins qui n'avaient pas Ã©tÃ© invitÃ©e Ã dÃ«poser oralement . AprÃ¨s avoir entendu les observations des parties, le s DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s ont dÃ©cidÃ© d'accepter les mesures desÃ©curitÃ© demandÃ©es par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur ; toutefois, dans certains cas, celles-ci n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©es d'accord entre les parties . Ile ont aussi dÃ©cidÃ© que les dÃ©positions et les dÃ©clarations solennelles faites sous serment des tÃ©moins qui n'Ã©taient pas appelÃ©s Ã dÃ©poser oralement seraient annexÃ©es au procÃ¨s-verbal des auditions, Ã©tant entendu qu'il appartiendrait Ã la seul eCosuind'aprÃ©cielfoprbante . A l'audience, les parties ont fourni des renseignement s sur 1'Ã©tat d'avancement des procÃ©dures engagÃ©es par les requÃ©rants devant dÃ©s tribunaux internes . Les requÃ©rants on e tnoaryesumicrnegmtsdaunelrtÃ© du 23 juin 1975 . . . . Cette audience, qui s'est terminÃ©e le 28 juin .1975 , a marquÃ© la fin de l'administration des preuves dans la prÃ©sente affnire . 41 personnes au total avaient ainsi Ã©tÃ© entendues .
Le 14 juillet 1975, la Commission a,dÃ©cidÃ© d'invite r les parties 9 compar itre d vant el pour ne audienc ontradictoire qui aurait lieu lors de sa 119e session, en vue de prÃ©senter leurs conclusions finales sur le fond de l'affaire en vue d'abrÃ©ger l'audience, elle a dÃ©cidÃ© ce mÃ©me jou r d'inviter en premier lieu les requÃ©rants, puis le Gouvernemen t dÃ©fendeur, Ã soumettre par Ã©crit leurs observations finales sur le fond de l'affaire et sur certains points particuliers .
Les observations finales des requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© soumises sous couvert d'une lettre du 10 septembre 1975, et les observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur sous couvert d'une lettre du 18 novembre 1975 . Les 12 et 13 dÃ©cembre 1975, la Commission a entendu les conclusions orales dÃ©finitives des parties
. Opsahl, Ndrgaard et Frowein .
- 97 -
.(1)M
ARGUMENTATION INITIALE DES PARTIES QUANT AU FON D QUANT AUX FAITS RELATIFS AUX SEPT CAS Argumentation des requÃ©ran t s Les cas de GÃ©rard Donnelly,
OÃ©ra r d Bradley et
Edward Du ff y
Il est allÃ©guÃ© que ces trois requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ©s ensemble dans la nuit du 20 au 21 avril 1972, puis conduits Ã un poste militaire de Belfast, o0 ils ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenus pendant 19 heures environ . Au cours de leur interrogatoire dans ce poste, chacun des requÃ©rants aurait Ã©tÃ© soumis aux tortures physiques les plus cruelles de la part, principalÃ©ment, d'agents de la "Section spÃ©ciale" (Special Branch), assistÃ©s de militaires . AprÃ¨s des "passages Ã tabac", qui auraient Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©s Ã 4 ou 5 reprises pendant la nuit et la matinÃ©e, chacun des requÃ©rants aurait dÃ» signer une "confession", par laquelle il reconnaissait avoir commis diverses infractions de caractÃ¨re terroriste, c e que chacun d'eux a dÃ©menti ultÃ©rieurement . Ils ont Ã©tÃ© hospitalisÃ©s le 22 avril aprÃ¨s avoir subi divers examens mÃ©dicaux et avoir comparu devant un tribunal . Les charges retenues contre chacun de ces requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© abandonnÃ©es le 6 juin 1972 . est restÃ© Ã l'hbpital jusqu'auB mai 1972 . M . Donnell I1 est d c ar qu'il souffrait de contusions, particuliÃ¨renient Ã la poitrine et au scrotum . A son entrÃ©e Ã l'hbpital, il souffrait beaucoup et avait des difficultÃ©s Ã respirer . Les requÃ©rante dÃ©clarent qu'il a manifestement Ã©tÃ© frappÃ© et battu trÃ¨s sÃ©vÃ¨rement . Une dÃ©claration de M . Donnelly, soumise avec les observations des requÃ©rants sur le fond, contient des dÃ©tails sur les tracasseries et les manoeuvres d'intimidation auxquelles ce requÃ©rant aurait Ã©tÃ© soumis aprÃ¨s qu'il fut sorti de prison et qu'ileut dÃ©posÃ© officiellement une plainte contre ceux qui l'avaient brutalisÃ© . M . Donnelly n'aurait subi aucune violence physique aprÃ¨s sa libÃ©ration, encore qu'il eut Ã©tÃ© menacÃ© et privÃ© dÃ© sommeil pendant 70 heures environ dans un poste du RUC, du 27 au 30 aoÃ»t 1972 . M . Bradley est restÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital pendant une semaine, jusqu'au 2 avr11 1972 . Il est dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il souffrait lui aussi de contusions importantes sur tout le corps, et notamment au scrotum, et que tout mouvement des membres et des articulations endoloris lui Ã©tait pÃ©nible . Selon une dÃ©claration datÃ©e du '-0 mai 1973, M . Bradley prÃ©tend aussi avoir fait l'objet de tracasseries et de manoeuvres d'intimidation de la part des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© aprÃ¨s sa libÃ©ration, mais sans avoir Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã des brutalitÃ©s . Entre autres incidents, son domicile aurait Ã©tÃ© saccagÃ© lor s
-96-
d'un raid de l'armÃ©e britannique en novembre 1972, et il prÃ©tend avoir Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© et menacÃ© par un officier de l'armÃ© e le 26 mars 1973 . Dans une dÃ©claration ultÃ©rieure, il a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© une nouvelle fois le 22 septembre 1973 .
M . Duffy aurait Ã©tÃ© le plus sÃ©rieusement blessÃ© des trois et seralt restÃ© Ã l'h8pital jusqu'au 6 juin 1972 . Il aurait prÃ©sentÃ© le mÃ©me genre de contusions Ã©tendues que MM . Donnelly et Bradley et aurait eu une fracture au coude gauche . Son Ã©ta t a nÃ©cessitÃ© une opÃ©ration et l'insertion d'une vis mÃ©tallique le 3 mai 1972 ; cette vis a Ã©tÃ© retirÃ©e ultÃ©rieurement lors d'une seconde intervention, pratiquÃ©e en aoGt 1972 . M . Duffy prÃ©tend aussi avoir fait l'objet de tracasseries et de manoeuvres d'intimidation de la part de l'armÃ©e aprÃ¨s qu'il eut Ã©tÃ© libÃ©rÃ© et se soit plaint des brutalitÃ©s qu'il avait subies . Pendant la nuit suivant sa seconde opÃ©ration, il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© Ã son domicile et prÃ©tendOment menacÃ© par l'agent de la police judiciaire qui lui avait cassÃ© le bras . M . Duffy a dÃ©clarÃ© qu'il avait Ã© tÃ© reconnu coupable par un tribunal, l e
13 septembre 1972, de deux infractions et condamnÃ© avec sursis . Il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© une nouvelle fois par l'armÃ©e le 20 septembre 1972, mais aucune charge n'a Ã©tÃ© retenue contre lui . En dernier lieu ,
M . Duffy a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© le 13 mars 1973, alors qu'il tÃ©moignait dans le cadre de l'action publique dÃ©clenchÃ©e Ã l'occasion des brutalitÃ©s qu'i1 avait subies au poste militaire en avril 1972 . Le 26 septembre 1973, il a Ã©tÃ© jugÃ© pour avoir soustrait et dÃ©tenu une arme Ã feu, et acquittÃ© . Toutefois, il a Ã©tÃ© immÃ©diatement arrÃªtÃ© une nouvelle fois et a fait ultÃ©rieurement l'objet d'une ordonnance de garde Ã vue .
Le cas de John Carli n Il est allÃ©guÃ© que M . Carlin a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© Ã Londonderry par une patrouille mixte du RUC et de l'armÃ©e pendant la nuit du 25 avril 1972 . I1 est demeurÃ© pendant de courtes pÃ©riodes dans diffÃ©rentes casernes de police, pour Ã©tre conduit ensuite au commissariat de police "A" . Il a Ã©tÃ« interrogÃ© daris ce commissariat et aurait Ã© tÃ© menacÃ© et battu durant la nuit . T8t le lendemain matin, M . Carlin a Ã©tÃ© conduit au commissariat de police "B", oÃ¹ il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© .maltraitÃ© . Il s'est plaint du traitement qui lui avait Ã©tÃ© infligÃ© au commissariat de police "A" et, Ã sa demande, a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par un mÃ©decin . Tard dans l'aprÃ¨s-midi, il a Ã©tÃ© conduit Ã un centre de dÃ©tention de la police oÃ¹, dans un premier temps, il a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par un mÃ©decin de l'armÃ©e, puis interrogÃ© pendant quelques heures . Il prÃ©tend que pendant la nuit on l'a laissÃ© dormir pendant de brefs instants, puis qu'on l'a interrog Ã© Ã nouveau . Au cours des deuxiÃ¨me et troisiÃ¨me interrogatoires, il aurait Ã©tÃ© sÃ©vÃ©rement battu et, pendant toute la journÃ©e du 27 avril, il aurait Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© (avec obligation de se tenir debout) et menacÃ©, mais sans Ã©tre brutalisÃ© . Il a Ã©tÃ© interrorÃ© par deux rois pendant cette nuit-lÃ et aurait fai t
- 99 -
l'objet de brutalitÃ©s physiquesA ces deux occasions . Il dÃ©clare avoir aussiÃ©tÃ© soumis Ã des traitements humiliants et dÃ©gradants, car on lui aurait introduit un manche Ã balai dans l'anus e t on l'aurait obligÃ© Ã se mettre Ã quatre pattes et Ã aboyer comme un chien . Le 28 avril 1972, il a Ã©tÃ© conduit au camp d'internement de Long Kesh . Il a subi un examen mÃ©dical Ã son dÃ©part du centre de dÃ©tention de la police ainsi qu'Ã son arrivÃ©e Ã Long Kesh . Il a Ã«tÃ© examinÃ© par un mÃ©decin civil le 2 mai 1972, une semaine aprÃ¨s eon arrestation . Le rapport d'expertise du mÃ©decin, qu i
a Ã©tÃ© soumis, conclut que "les rÃ©sultats concordent avec les dÃ©clarations de M . Carlin, selon lesquelles il a Ã©tÃ© battu et blessÃ©" .
M . Carlin a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu en vertu de la lÃ©gislation sur l'Ã©tat d'urgence pendant quelque temps encore aprÃ¨s le mois d'avril 1972 . Le cas de Francis McBrid e II est allÃ©guÃ© que M . MeBride a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ«tÃ© Ã son domicile au dÃ©but de l'aprÃ¨s-midi du 13 avril 1972, puis conduit Ã un poste du RUC . Au cours de l'interrogatoire qu'il a subi pendant l'aprÃ¨s-midi, il aurait Ã©tÃ© frappÃ© Ã la tÃ©te et Ã l'estomac Ã coups de poing et avec le tranchant de la main . On lui aurait dit aussi qu'on l'exposerait Ã une foule en colÃ¨re qui se trouvait devant le poste . Il dÃ©clare que, saignant du nez et de la bouche et ayant trÃ©s peur, il a consenti Ã faire une dÃ©claration . On ne l'aurait pas autorisÃ© Ã s'entretenir avec un solicitor .
AprÃ¨s que M . MeBride eut fait cette dÃ©claration, on lui a donnÃ© une tasse de thÃ© ;â¢aprÃ¨s en avoir bu un peu, il aurait commencÃ© Ã avoir des Ã©tourdissements . Il serait difficile de savoir si ces Ã©tourdissements ont Ã©tÃ© consÃ©cutifs aux brutalitÃ©s qu'il asubiee ou 6 l'absorption du thÃ© qu'on lui a donnÃ© ; toutefois, il semble bien que le thÃ© contenait un e sorte de drogue . L'interrogatoire se serait poursuivi sans interruption jusqu'Ã 4 heures du matin, le 14 avril ; pendant cette pÃ©riode, M . McBride a fait d'autres dÃ©clarations et n'aurait reÃ§u qu'un plateau de sandwiches et du thÃ© . On l'a ensuite autorisÃ© Ã dorr.'_r, puis on l'a interrogÃ© de 9 h 30 Ã 14 heures . A son rÃ©,:eil, on lui a donnÃ© encore des sandwiches et du thÃ©, mais il n'aâ¢~rait reÃ§u son premier "vrai repas" qu'Ã 14 heures .
Aux environs de minuit, il aurait Ã©tÃ© extrait de sa ce'_lule, puis interrogÃ© pendant 3 heures par quatre hommes di'Â°Ã©rents . Le 15 avril, il a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© d'assassinat ("murder") et transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison d'Armagh oÃ¹ il a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par le ^!dec :n de l'Ã©tablissement et a reÃ§u la de l'aumbnie r
- 100 -
de la prison, qui a assistÃ© en qualitÃ© de tÃ©moin Ã l'Ã©tablissement d'une dÃ©claration concernantle traitement'qui avait Ã©tÃ© infligÃ© au requâ¬rant et qui a examinÃ© sesblessures .Sauf pendant le premier interrogÃ¢toire,'le 13 avril 1972, i l n'aurait pae Ã©tÃ© brutalYsÃ© . ' 1 "' ~ ~ . Lors de son procÃ¨s, McBride n'a reconnu avoir commi ( "manslaughter") eta Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã 10 an s squ'nmert
de prison . Les cas d'Anthonv Kelly et de ThÃ´masKearns .4 s armÃ©e e M. K e par des s d e soldat s de l britannique a o s qauu 'raiitl Ã©Ã©ttÃ©ai t a en compagni s Thoma ' Kearn t de deux autres hommes, prÃ©tendument en train de dresser-une embuscade prÃ¨s de Newry, le 30 avril 1972 ; les soldats l'auraient attaquÃ©et battu et lui auraient donnÃ© des coups de pied au moment dÃ©~son arrestation, alors qu'il-n'offrait aucune rÃ©sistance . Conduit Ã un poste du RUC, on lui aurait frappÃ© sans dÃ©semparer la tÃ©te contre un mur .
r Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare qu'on lui a donnÃ© une tasse de th Ã© aprÃ¨s qu'il eÃ¹t fait une dÃ©claration . Il s'est plaint ensuite de souffrir d'hallucinations Ã la suite du "passage A tabac" et de ne pas savoir oÃ¹ il se trouvait .Â°I1 a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© Ã . nouveau et menacÃ© par des agents de la "Section spÃ©ciale" . M . Kelly a Ã©tÃ© conduit le lendemain matin Ã un autre poste du RUC . Il prÃ©tend qu'il Ã©tait incapable'd'uriner et qu'il a souffert d'hallucinations pendant toute la journÃ©e . Le eoir du 1er mai 1972, il a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© d'avoir commis Ã . Newry diverses infractions Ã la lÃ©gislation sur les armes Ã feu, puis a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© A la prison d'Armagh . Dans la soirÃ©e du 1er mai et Ã nouveau, semble-t-il, le 3 mai, M . Kelly a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par un mÃ©decin extÃ©rieur Ã l'Ã©tablissement qui avait Ã©tÃ© appelÃ© par son solicitor . Selon le rapport d'expertise mÃ©dicale, M . Kelly avait "subi de trÃ¨s graves brutalitÃ©s" . Le mÃ©decin concluait que l'incapacitÃ© d'uriner et la sÃ©cheresse de la bouche "permettaiÃ©nt de conclure Ã l'administration d'une tmp forte dose d'amphÃ©tamines" . M . Kelly se plaint aussi d'avoir souffert en permanence de maux de tÃ©te et de vertiges . aurait Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© le 30 avril 1972 dans - lee M . Kearns mÃ©mes circonstances que M . Kelly et auraitâ¢aussi Ã«tÃ©brutalisÃ© pendant sa dÃ©tention auprÃ¨s des militaires . AprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© conduit Ã un poste du RUC, il aurait Ã©tÃ© frappÃ© Ã coiips de pied dans l'estomac par un dÃ©tective en civil et frappÃ© plusieurs fois par un agent de police en uniforme . Un peu plus tard, l'officier commandant la patrouille militaire'quiPavait arrÃ©tÃ© eerait venu dans sa cellule et 1'Ã©Ã»raitmenacÃ©'de'lÃ©' tuer si certains fusils n'Ã©taient pas retrouvÃ©s . .â¢ . 5 : '
- 101 -
M . Kearns prÃ©tend qu'il a ensuite fait une dÃ©claration sous la crainte d'Ã©tre de nouveau "passÃ© Ã tabac" . AprÃ¨s cela, on lui a donnÃ© du thÃ© et on l'a reconduit dans sa cellule . Sa dÃ©claration aurait Ã©tÃ© assez imprÃ©cise quant Ã la chronologie et aux Ã©vÃ©nements, mais i] semble que le 1er mai on lui ait donnÃ© au moins deux fois encore du thÃ© Ã boire . Pendant la majeure partie de cette journÃ©e, il aurait souffert de violents frissons, sa bouche aurait Ã©tÃ© sÃ¨che, son Ã©tat mental extrÃªmement confus, et il aurait commencÃ© Ã avoir des hallucinations . Il est dÃ©clarÃ© que M . Kearns a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par le mÃ©me mÃ©decin extÃ©rieur Ã l'Ã©tablissement les ier et 3 mai . Les requÃ©rants font observer que ce mÃ©decin a dÃ©crit M . Kearns dans son rapport d'expertise dans les termes suivants :"Ahuri, tremblant et dÃ©primÃ©, il avait trÃ¨s peur" . Des "blessures Ã©tendues" ont Ã©tÃ© constatÃ©es dans le dos et le cou, ainsi qu'une grande contusion Ã l'estomac . L'analyse d'un Ã©chantillon de l'urine de M . Kearns rÃ©alisÃ©e Ã l'hbpital de Belfast-City a"rÃ©vÃ©lÃ« la prÃ©sence d'amphÃ©tamine" . Pour diverses raisons exposÃ©es dans son rapport d'expertise, le mÃ©decin a exclu la possibilitÃ© que M . Kearns ait pu ingÃ©rer lui-mÃªme les drogues avant son arrestation, .et il a conclu qu'on se trouvait devant un dÃ©tenu Ã qui l'on avait dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment administrÃ© des amphÃ©tamines pour le plonger dans un Ã©tat d'anxiÃ©tÃ© et lui faire perdre les notions de temps et de lieu . MM . Kelly et Kearns ont tous deux reconnu avoir contrevenu Ã la lÃ©gislation sur les armes Ã feu et ont Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ©s Ã deux ans de prison le 5 dÃ©cembre 1972 . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent avoir subi des tortures et des traitements inhumains et dÃ©gradants au sens de l'article 3 . B.
Argumentation du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r
GÃ©nÃ©ralitÃ© s Dans ses premiÃ¨res observations sur le fond, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a dÃ©clarÃ©, d'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, qu'en ce qui concerne le contenu de la requÃ©te et des observations sur le fond, qu'il s'agisse des questions de fait ou de droit, il ne reconnait rien hormis ce qui a Ã©tÃ© expressÃ©ment indiquÃ© . En particulier, le Gouvernement "ne reconnait pas le bien-fondÃ© des allÃ©gations des requÃ©rants Kelly, Kearns, Carlin ou McBride, non plus que l'existence des mauvais traitements dÃ©crits par les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Duffy et Bradley" . Les cas de GÃ©rard
Donnelly, GÃ©rard Bradley et Ed ward Duff y
Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur passe succinctement en revue les allÃ©gations des requÃ©rants .
il fait valoir qu'au cours de leur interrogatoire les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Duffy et Bradley ont chacun fait un certain nombre de dÃ©clarations par lesquelles '-ls ont reconnu avoi r
- 102 -
participÃ© Ã diverses activitÃ©s terroristes . Il en est rÃ©sultÃ© que tous trois ont Ã©tÃ© accusÃ©s d'avoir provoquÃ© une explosion le 13 novembre 1971 et que les requÃ©rants Donnelly et Duffy ont aussi Ã©tÃ© accusÃ©s d'avoir'provoquÃ© une autre explosio n le 30 mars 1972 . Ils ont comparu le 22 avril 1972 devant le tribunal de Belfast spÃ©cialisÃ© dans les affaires de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive (Custody Court) . Vu que les dÃ©clarations pouvaient Ã©tre irrecevables, il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cidÃ©, selon le Gouvernement, d'abandonner les accusations et, devant le Tribunal de simple police (Magistrates' Court) de Belfast, le 6 juin 1972, aucune charge n'a Ã©tÃ© . produite Ã l'encontre des requÃ©rants, qui ont Ã©tÃ© mis en libertÃ© . Il fait valoir qu'Ã l'audience du 22 avril, les trois requÃ©rants se sont plaints d'avoir subi de mauvais traitements alors qu'ils se trouvaient en dÃ©tention . Des enquÃ©tes ont Ã©tÃ© taites sur le bien-fondÃ© des allÃ©gations et, le 4 juillet 1972, ou aux environs de cette date, les agents de la police judiciaire M . et B . ont ÃtÃ© accusÃ©s d'avoir infligÃ© Ã chacun des requÃ©rants de graves prÃ©judices corporels, en violation de la loi de 1861 sur les infractions contre les personnes ; le simple soldat C . a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© d'avoir infligÃ© au requÃ©rant Duffy un prÃ©judice corporel . Ces trois personnes ont Ã©tÃ© jugÃ©es Ã Belfastpar le Premier PrÃ©sident de la Cour SuprÃªme d'Irlande du Nor d
(Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland) et un jury, et ont Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ©es par le jury sur l'ensemble des chefs d'accusation . Le 16 mai 1972, alors qu'ils se trouvaient encore en prison, les trois requÃ©rants ont engagÃ© des procÃ©dures civiles contre le MinistÃ¨re de la DÃ©fense, le Commissaire principal du RUC et l'agent de la police juridiciaire M . Les demandes introductives d'instance, qui sont annexÃ©es aux observations du Gouvernement sur la recevabilitÃ©, rÃ©clamaient "des dommagesintÃ©rÃ©ts pour prÃ©judices corporels : pertes et dommages subis par le plaignant Ã la suite de brutalitÃ©s et d'atteintes Ã sÃ´n intÃ©gritÃ© corporelle" . Le Gouvernement fait valoir que bien qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© Ã l'audience sur la recevabilitÃ© que "l'exercice de ce recours sera poursuivi", les requÃ©rants n'ont pas donnÃ© suite Ã leur projet . Le cas de John C arli n Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait valoir que ce requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© le 25 avril parce qu'il Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ©d'avoir provoquÃ© une explosion Ã Limavady, le 28 mars 1972, qui avait causÃ© la destruction d'une automobile de passage et la mort des deux personnes Ã bord de cette automobile . Il a Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© au commissariat de police "A", puis conduit au commissariat de police "B", oÃ¹ il s'est plaint qu'on lui ait tordu le bras et qu'on l'ait giflÃ© . Il s'Ã©tait prÃ©cÃ©demment plaint d'avoir mal au bras, mal qu'il avait contractÃ©, selon lui, en tombant dans l'escalier du commissariat de police "A" . M . Carlin a5tÃ© interrogÃ© ultÃ©rieurement au centre de dÃ©tention de la police . Au cours de son interrogatoire, il a fait ,
- 103 -
selon le Gouvernement, un certain nombre de dÃ©clarations par lesquelles il reconnaissait avoir participÃ© 8 des activitÃ©s terroriates . Lors de sa libÃ©ration du centre de dÃ©tention, le mÃ©decin qui l'a examinÃ© a constatÃ© : 1 . des Ã©raflures sur le dos des mains , ii . des contusions dans la partie supÃ©rieure du dos, iii . des Ã© raflures au coude gauche, e t iv . une lÃ©gÃ¨re seneibilitÃ© cuisse gauche .
sur la face externe de la
M . Carlin aurait dit au mÃ©decin qu'il n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ© . Le Gouvernement fait valoir, par ailleurs, qu'Ã la suite des plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es au nom de M . Carlin, une enquÃ©te a Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©e et que le 8 mai 1972 un officier supÃ©rieur de police s'est rendu Ã Long Keeh, od le requÃ©rant se trouvait dÃ©tenu, pour s'entretenir avec lui au sujet de ses plaintes . Les gardiens de prison l'ontinformÃ© que M . Carlin refusait de le voir . Nonobstant ce refus, d'autres enquÃ©tes ont Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©es, et le Chef du Parquet, qui avait Ã©tÃ© saisi de l'affaire a jugÃ© qu'il n'y avait pas suffisamment de preuves pour poursuivre un agresseur identifiable . Le Gouvernement fait observer que M . Carlin n'a engagÃ© Ã l'Ã©poque aucune action civile contre quelque autoritÃ© ou personne que ce soit pour faire valoir ses griefs .
M . Carlin a Ã©tÃ© emprisonnÃ© Ã Long Kesh le 28 avril 1972 . Le 3 janvier 1973, il a comparu devant un Commissaire, dÃ©signÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'Ordonnance sur la dÃ©tention des terroristes, qui a pris une ordonnance de dÃ©tention Ã¢ son encontre . 4.
Le cas de Francis
McBrid e
Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait valoir que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© le 13 avril 1972 parce qu'il Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir provoquÃ© unÃ© explosion,qui avait eu lieu ce mÃ©me jour et qui avait provoquÃ© la mort de Mme M . Il a avouÃ© cette participation au commiesariat de police . Le 19 janvier 1973, il a Ã©tÃ© dâ¬fÃ©rÃ© Ã la session d'hiver des Assises (Winter Assizes) pour y rÃ©pondre des infractions suivantes : 1 . L'assassinat de Mme M ., le 13 avril 1972 . 2 . Avoir provoquÃ© une explosion le 13 avril 1972 . 3 . Une tentative d'assassinat, le 12 avril 1972, sur la peraonnq d'un agent de police .
- 104 -
4 . L'accomplissement d'un acte avec ' l'intention,d le 12 avri1 .1972 . eprovqunÃ¨xlsio, 5 . La dÃ©tention d'explosifs, le 12 avril 1972 . 6 . Avoir provoquÃ© une explosion le 5 avril 1972 . Au titre de ces accusations, il a plaidÃ© et,a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© comme suit : 1 . Non coupable, mais coupable de meurtre- 10 an s 2 .
Coupable
-
10
ans
3 .
Coupable
-
10
ans 7 ans
4, Coupable 5 .
Coupable
6 . Coupable .
-
6
10
an s
an s
Lors dÃ© son procÃ¨s, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ©reprÃ©sentÃ© par . un avocat principal et un avocat assistant, ainsi que par un solicitor . A l'instruction (committal proceedings), ce solicitor avait fait observer que le requÃ©rant se plaignait d'avoir subi de mauvais traitements . Ses avocats n'ont pas eoulevÃ© ce point lors du procÃ¨s . Le u ouvernement fait valoir que le RUC a continuÃ© d'enquÃ©ter sur lea plaintes de M . MeBride, mais que celui-ci a refusÃ© de coopÃ©rer Ã l'enquÃªte . Il est fait valoir par ailleurs que le requÃ©rant n'avait engagÃ© jusqu'alors aucune action civile contre quelque autoritÃ© ou personne que%ce soit pour faire valoir ses griefs .
5.
Les cas d'Anthony Kelly et de Thomas Kearn s Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur dÃ©clÃ¢re que ces deu x requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© ar Ã©tÃ©s dans la nuit du 30 avril 1972, e n
compagnie de deux autres indiv-idus . Selon le Gouvernement, des membres des forces armÃ©es ont dÃ©couvert ces individus sur le bas-c8tÃ© d'une route, en train de dresser une embuscade . Kelly et Kearna Ã©taient allongÃ©s dans un fossÃ© avec des .armes A feu chargÃ©es . Il fait observer que le requÃ©rant Kearns a .reconnu, dans une dÃ©claration soumise avec sa requÃ©te, qu'il avait-Ã©tÃ© trouvÃ© en possession de deux armes, une carabine M .I . et un 22 long rifle . Une seconde carabine M .I% chaiigÃ©e :-a Ã©tÃ© retrouvÃ©e plus tard sur les lieux .
Le Gouvernement dÃ©clare, par ailleurs, que lorsqu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ©e par la police ;les deux requÃ©rants ont reconnu Ãªtre impliquÃ©s dans la tentative d'embuscade .
- 105 -
Le 5 septembre 1972, Ã la Cour d'assises d'Armagh, chacun des deux requÃ©rants a reconnu Ã©tre coupable de deux infractions Ã la rÃ©glementation sur la dÃ©tention des armes 9 feu et a Ã©tÃ© condassiÃ© Ã deux ans de prison . Ces deux requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© libÃ©rÃ©s en novembre 1973 . . Le Gouvernement dÃ©clare qu'Ã la suite des allÃ©gations de "graves brutalitÃ©s" formulÃ©es au nom des requÃ©rants, le Commissaire principal a ordonnÃ© l'ouverture d'une enquÃ©te . Le 10 mai 1972, un policier a demandÃ© Ã s'entretenir avec les requÃ©rants au sujet de ces plaintes . M . Kearns a vu l'inspecteur et dÃ©clarÃ© qu'i1 n'avait "rien Ã dire" et qu'il "ne ferait pas de dÃ©claration Ã ce sujet" . Pour sa part, M . Kelly aurai t refusÃ© de s'entretenir avec le policier . Selon le Gouvernement, lorsqu'i1 a Ã«tÃ« allÃ©guÃ© ultÃ©rieurement (en premier lieu, semble-t-il, lors d'une interview Ã la radio le 21 mai et, ultÃ©rieurement, dans une lettre adressÃ©e le 22 mai Ã la police) qu'i1 y avait eu administration d'amphÃ©tamines, le policier enquÃ©teur a tentÃ© une nouvelle fois de s'entretenir avec les deux hommes, mais s'est heurtÃ© Ã un refus . Aucun Ã©chantillo n de l'urine de M . Kearns (qui avait servi de base aux allÃ©gations relatives A l'administration d'amphÃ©tamines) n'a Ã©tÃ© soumi s Ã la police . Aucun dee deux requÃ©rants n'avait engagÃ© jusqu'alors des poursuites civiles contre quelque autoritÃ© ou personne que ce soit pour faire valoir ses griefs . II . QUANT AU POINT DE SAVOIR SI LES MAUVAIS TRAITEMENT S A LE C N A L ADRE D'UNE PRATIQUE RA R A L'ART C E 3 D Argumentation des requÃ©rants quant aux fait s Les requÃ©rants font valoir que pendant toute la pÃ©riode qui a suivi la vague de mesures-d`internement survenue l e
9 aoGt 1971, les cas de tortures et de traitements inhumains et dÃ©gradants ontdÃ©montrÃ© que les brutalitÃ©s dont ils avaient Ã©tÃ© victimes en 1972 se sont poursuivies jusqu'au moment oÃ¹ ils ont soumis par Ã©crit leurs premiÃ¨res observations sur le fond . Ils dÃ©clarent que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'a pas tentÃ© sÃ©rieusement de mettre fin Ã ces pratiques . A l'appui de leurs griefs, les requÃ©rants produisent 250 dÃ©clarations ou tÃ©moignages divers concernant des cas individuels de tortures ou de mauvais traitements infligÃ©s par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . L'existence allÃ©guÃ©e d'un systÃ¨me de tortures en Irlande du Nord est conrirmÃ©e, selon les requÃ©rants, par des rapports, des enquÃ©tes et des dÃ©clarations Ã©manant de tiers, Ã savoir Amnesty International et la Ligue internationale des Droits de l'Homme, deux organes jouissant d'un statut consultatif auprÃ¨s de diverses organisations internationales ; le Conseil national pour les libertÃ©s civiques, qui a son siÃ¨ge Ã Londres ; et l'Association pour la justice par le droit, l'Association pour les droits civiques en Irlande du Nord et la Campagne pou r
- 1o6 -
la justice sociale, qui ont toutes leur siÃ¨ge en Irlande du Nord . En outre, l'existence de mauvais traitements a Ã©tÃ© confirmÃ© e par des enquÃ¨tes effectuÃ©es par le groupe "World in Action" de Granada Television et par 11"Insight Team" du Sunday Times, ainsi que par des particuliers en Irlande du Nord qui avaient directement connaissance de la situation . Des exemplaires de ces rapports ainsi que d'autres documents ont Ã©tÃ© soumis par les requÃ«rante . 9 aoÃ»t 197 1 Selon les requÃ©rants, un certain nombre d'individus arrÃªtÃ©s lors de la premiPre vague de mesures d'internement , le 9 aoÃ»t 1971, ainsi qu'au cours d'opÃ©rations ultÃ©rieures, ont Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã des "interrogatoires approfondis" . Certaines techniques, sur lesquelles la Commission Compton a enquÃªtÃ© ultÃ©rieurement, leur ont Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©es pour les dÃ©sorienter et faciliter leur interrogatoire . Ces "techniques Compton", qui consistent notamment Ã¨"encapuchonner" (hooding) le dÃ©tenu , Ã le soumettre en permanence Ã des bruits, Ã l'obliger Ã se tenir debout contre un mur pendant des pÃ©riodes pouvant aller jusqu'Ã© 43 heures et demie, Ã le priver de sommeil et Ã ne lui donner comme toute nourriture que du pain et de l'eau, ont Ã©tÃ©, de l'avis gÃ©nÃ©ral, appliquÃ©es par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© et autorisÃ©es par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . Les requÃ©rants rappellent que dans sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te introduite par l'Irlande contre le Royaume-Un i (nÂ° 5310 / 71), la Commission a jugÃ© "qu'il n'est pas douteux que le recours Ã ces techniques d'interrogatoire ait constituÃ© une "pratique adminietrative"" (1) . En mars 1972, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a fait siennes les recommandations dissidentes de Lord Gardiner figurant dans le rapport Parker, et a annoncÃ© que les cinq techniques dites de Compton ne seraient plus appliquÃ©es . Les requÃ©rants font observer qu'il apparaissait clairement que les interrogatoires approfondis se poursuivraient .
Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent non seulement que lesforces de sÃ©curitÃ© ont continuÃ© d'enfreindre l'article 3, mais encore qu'au moins deux des techniques Compton, Ã savoir l'obligation faite au dÃ©tenu de se tenir debout contre un mur et la privation de sommeil, ont continuÃ© d'Ã©tre appliquÃ©cs en dÃ©pit de s assurances donnÃ©es en mars 1972 . Les requÃ©rants font observer que la Commission Compton a aussi examinÃ© des allÃ©gations relatives Ã d'autres formes de sÃ©vices physiques . Ils font rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã un certain nombre d'incidents diffÃ©rents qui ont fait l'objet d'enquÃ©tes, et ils dâ¬clarent que pour quatre incidents seulement sur 57, le rapport a conclu que les allÃ©gations Ã©taient probablement dÃ©pourvue s de fondement .
( 1) Recueil de dÃ©cisions, Vol . 41, p . 86 .
- 107 -
AoÃ»t 1971 - avril 197 2 Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent qu'i1 existe des preuves qu'au moins certaines des techniques Compton ont continuÃ© d'Ã©tre appliquÃ©es Ã de~ dÃ©tenusaprÃ¨s l'opÃ©ration initiale du 9 aoÃ»t . Au cours de son enquÃªte sur des allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements Amnesty International a entendu des tÃ©moignages rÃ©vÃ©lant le recours Ã 1111 encapuchonnemer .t", encore en novembre par exemple, bien que le seul cas observÃ© dans lequel l'ensemble des cinq techniques ont Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©es se soit produit l e
9 octobre . . Outre les quelques cas d'"encapuchonnement", etc ., les mauvais traitements les plus frÃ©quemment signalÃ©s pendant cette pÃ©riode ont Ã©tÃ© des "passages Ã tabac", souvent au cours des arrestations opÃ©rÃ©es par des membres de 1'armÃ©e britannique et en cours de transport vers les centres d'interrogatoire . Des dÃ©tails sur les nombreux cas individuels, assortis pour certains de rapports d'expertise mSdicale, ont Ã©tÃ© fournis dans le rapport d'Amnenty International, dans l'ouvrage intitulÃ« "The Mailed Fist" (La maniÃ¨re forte) ainsi que dans des dÃ©clarations recueillies par l'Association pour la justice par le droit . Selon les requÃ©rants, la torture parait avoi r Ã©tÃ© pratiquÃ©e essentiellement en vue d'obtenir des renseignements sur l'IRA, qui s'Ã©tait rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e de plus en plus active pendant l'annÃ©e 1971 . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que les mauvais traitements ont lÃ©gÃ©rement diminuÃ© en dÃ©cembre, encore que plusieurs agressions brutales aient Ã©tÃ© signalÃ©es . Les tortures auraient repris au dÃ©but de 1972, mais la motivation essentielle Ã©tait dÃ©sormais de moins en moins le dÃ©sir d'obtenir des renseignements et de plus en plus le dÃ©sir d'accÃ©lÃ©rer le processus des poursuites pÃ©nales contre les dÃ©tenus, plut3t que de recouri r Ã des mesures d'internement . Ils prÃ©tendent que pendant cette pÃ©riode, la torture a Ã©tÃ© le plus souvent pratiquÃ©e au cours des interrogatoires par des membres de la "Section spÃ©ciale" du RUC, encore que des militaires aient continuÃ© de "passer Ã tabac" des individus lors de leur arrestation et que ces "passages Ã tabac" aient pu Ãªtre destinÃ©s Ã rendre le dÃ©tenu plus malÃ©able pour simplifier .â¢la tÃ¢che des interrogateurs .
Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que c'est pendant les quatre premiers mois de 1972 que les brutalitÃ©s phy st ues les plus cruelles ont Ã©tÃ© pratiquÃ©es . Des allÃ©gationsÃ¢e graves brutalitÃ©e ont Ã©tÃ© formulÃ©es presque quotidiennement, dont un grand nombre ont fait l'otjet d'enquÃ©tes et ont Ã©tÃ© rendues publiques par deux prÃªtres catholiques, dont l'un Ã©tait l'aumbnier de la prison d'Armagh . Outre les "passages Ã tabac" systÃ©matiques , de nouvelles techniques d'interrogatoire ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©noncÃ©es, notamment le recours Ã des drogues, Ã l'â¬lectrochoc et aux menaces .
- 108 -
Dans une sÃ©rie d'Ã©missions tÃ©lÃ©visÃ«esprÃ©sentÃ©es en septembre 1972 et intitulÃ©es "Laquestion des tortures", l'Ã©quipe "World in Action" de'Granada Television'a passÃ© en revue 98 cas de tortures'qui se sont produitsentre aoÃ»u1971 et fÃ©vrier 1972 . Le caractPre physique plut Ã t que psychologique des tortures pratiquÃ©es Ã¨cette Ã©poque a Ã©tÃ© , soulignÃ©'pa . George Conningham, membre du'Parlementy qui a . dÃ©clar Ã© rM "Si l'on considÃ¨re les Ã©vÃ©nements prouvÃ©s de'l'annÃ©e derniÃ¨re, il est dÃ©raisonnable de penserque rien de'tel ne s'eet passÃ© cette annÃ©e ; la diffÃ©cence ; selon moi, tient'Ã Ã©e que tandis que l'annÃ©e derniÃ¨re on Ã©tait en prÃ©sence d'un effort trÃ¨s systÃ©matique en vue d'arracher des renseignements Ã des personnes Ã©l'aide de . moyens raffinÃ©s, qui avaient Ã©tÃ© bien pensÃ©s et Ã©prouvÃ©s,il semble que l'on ait affaire cette'annÃ©e Ã quelque chose deplus improvisÃ© et qui consiste Ã battre les gens et Ã© les maltraiter de maniÃ¨re mois organisÃ©e" . Les echni ues Ã´ntâ¢pÃ©ut=Ã©tr e requÃ©rants soutiennent que si lee t~ la Commission Ã©tÃ© moins systÃ©matiques que celles su r Compton a enquÃ©tÃ©, la politique consistant Ã recodriraux brutalitÃ©s et Ã la torture a manifestement Ã© tÃ© encouragÃ©e, tout au moins aux Ã©chelons infÃ©rieurs et intermÃ©diaires de la l . hiÃ©rarchie des forcÃ©e de sÃ©curitÃ© . ' ' ' ' S'agissant d'allÃ©gations particuliÃ©res concernant l'administration d'Ã©lectrochocs aux suspects interrogÃ©s, les requÃ©rants attirent l'attention de la Commission sur la page 21 du compte rendu de l'Ã©mission tÃ©lÃ©visÃ©e de la sociÃ©tÃ© Granada, od il est faitobserver que l'Office du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni pour l'Irlande du Nord a tlÃ© . c larÃ© "ne pas pouvoir rÃ©pondre" lorsque l'Ã©quipe de Granada l'a interrogÃ© au sujet de l'utilisation d'un "stimulateur nerveux"' . ' soutiennent qu'aprÃ©s .LesrquÃ©ant l " instÃ«uration d u rÃ©gime de l'administration directe en Irlande du Nord , le 25 mars 1972, et aprÃ¨s l'annonce que 1'internementallait Ã©tre progressivement supprimÃ©, les forces de sÃ©curitÃ©ont Ã©tÃ© pressÃ©es d'obtenir des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve permettÃ¢nt de faire condamner les suspects devant les SuridictionÃ¢ de droit commun . Il s'ensuit que de violents "passages Ã tabac" auraient .Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©s aux dÃ©tenus pour les forcer Ã signerâdes aveux, et Ã©t Ã cette" c'est Ã cette pÃ©riode prÃ©cisÃ©ment que remontent pratique particuliÃ©re que sont dus,les incidents dont les sept requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© victimes . Ceux-ci prÃ©tendÃ©nt que leur sept cas constituent en eux-mÃ©mes une preuve convaincante de la pratique administrative de torture .qui a existÃ© en Irlande du Nord dans les premiers mois de 197'â¢-Trois cÃ¢s (DÃ¢nnÃ©lly, Bradley et Duffy) se sont produits Ã Bel :sst, u n cas (Carlin) Ã Londonderry, un cas ( McBride) dans le cumtÃ©,d'xntrim, et Ceci'Ã©tant, deux cas ( Kelly etKearns) dans le comtÃ© de Down . si les circonstances de leurs arrestations ont Ã©tÃ© diffÃ©rentes, tous les sept ont Ã©tÃ© torturÃ©s brutalement pendant leur interrogatoire ( Kelly, Kearns et McBride aurait reÃ§ude surcroit des drogues destir.Ã©es Ã les dÃ©sorienter), pour les forcer Ã signer-des aveux et Ã donner des renseignements .
- 109 -
Les requÃ©rants ajoutent que plusieurs des cas ont bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'une grande publicitÃ© Ã l'Ã©poque, car des prÃ©judices corporels aussi graves ne pouvaient guÃ¨re Ã©tre gardÃ©s sous silence et, bien souvent, des rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale incontestÃ©s tÃ©moignaient de l'ampleur des dommages corporels infligÃ©s . En mai 1972, au moins deux plaintes avaient dÃ©j Ã Ã©tÃ© soumises Ã la Commission, allÃ©guant que le Royaume-Uni enfreignait l'article 3 de la Convention . C'est peut-Ãªtre sous l'effet de cee pressions,tant Ã l'Ã©chelon international que dans la presse, et de dÃ©cisions prises Ã Londres, qu'on a enregistrÃ©, selon les requÃ©rants, une diminution, Ã partir de mai 1972, du nombre de plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es contre les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Les requÃ©rants font valoir que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve soumis Ã la Commission concernant des cas de torture ainsi que de traitements et de peines inhumains ou dÃ©gradants, entre aoÃ»t 1971 et avril 1972, dÃ©montrent l'existence d'un systÃ¨me de brutalitÃ©s qui ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme une simple rencontre d'Ã©vÃ©nements isolÃ©s . De mÃ©me, les techniques d'interrogatoire Compton, dont la Commission a dÃ©jÃ Ã©tabli qu'elles constituent une pratique administrative, ne devraient pas Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©es cor.Me sans rapport avec la politique dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©e et gÃ©nÃ©ralisÃ©e visant Ã obtenir des renseignements et desaveux des dÃ©tenus Ã l'aide de sÃ©vices . L'anÃ©antissement d ~ terrorisme est un objectif parfaitement lÃ©gitime, mais les a :lÃ©gations concordantes de mauvais traitements formulÃ©es pendant les mois qui ont suivi la mise en oeuvre de la politique d'internement rÃ©vÃ©lent que lesmoyens utilisÃ©s pour arracher des renseignements ou des aveux vont trÃ¨s au-delA de ce oue l'on peut considÃ©rer comme des procÃ©dÃ©s d'interrogatoire acceptables . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que les techniques Compton constituaient un moyen raffinÃ© d'utiliser la torture psychologique pour forcer les dÃ©tenus Ã rarler ; lorsque ces techniques ont fait l'objec d'enquÃ©tes et orit Ã©tÃ© ultÃ©rieuremen t abandonnÃ©es, elles ont Ã©tÃ© resmplacÃ©es par eles techniques de tortures physioues plus brutales et plu=_ traditionnelles destinÃ©es Ã obtenir le mÃ©me degrÃ© de coercition . Tout cela n'a Ã©tÃ© qu'un aspect du mÃ©me systÃ¨me de brutalitÃ©s visant Ã supprimer le terrorisme et Ã rÃ©primer la minoritÃ© politique qui avait fait campagne non violente pour la justice sociale et les droits civiques en Irlande du Nord . Mai - juillet 197 2 Selon les requÃ©rants, il semble qu'il y ait eu, pour quelque raison que ce fÃ»t, une diminution des brucalitÃ©s p! :ysiques tout au moina pendant cette pÃ©riode . Cette accalmie se produisant Ã quelques nois de l'entrÃ©e en vigueur du rÃ©gime de l'administration directe, on a esaÃ©rb qu'elle signifiait la fin des tortures systÃ©matiques pratiquÃ©es jusqu'alors .
- 110 -
Des incidents sÃ©rieux ont Ã©tÃ© signalÃ©s, notammen t le cas d'un Ã©colier qui aurait eu le bras cassÃ© et les cheveux tondus par des militaires, et celui de deux jeunes filles qui auraient subi des souffrances psychologiques pendant leur interrogatoire Ã Belfast . D'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, toutefois, ces incidents ont pu Ã©quitablement Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©s, selon les requÃ©rants, comme des vestiges isolÃ©s des brutalitÃ©s des mois prÃ©cÃ©dents, plut8t que comme la preuve proprement dite de la poursuite d'une pratiquÃ© administrativÃ© de tortures ou de traitements dÃ©gradants . Ils font valoir que l'interruption aoparente, pendant cette pÃ©riode, de la torture administrativement approuvÃ©e ou tolÃ©rÃ©e est la preuve du degrÃ© de discipline que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur peut obteni^ des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . AoÃ»t - no vembre 197 2 Le 31 juillet 1972, l'armÃ©e britannique a lancÃ© l'opÃ©ration Motorman, qui visait notamment Ã rÃ©tablir une prÃ©sence officielle (l'armÃ©e) dans les zones de Belfast et de Londonderry dans lesquelles les habitants s'Ã©taient barricadÃ©s jusqu'alors . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que cette reprise apparent e de la recherche d'une solution militaire Ã la situation en Irlande du Nord s'est accompagnÃ©e de la part des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© d'un regain de tortures physiques et psychologiques . Alors qu'au dÃ©but de 1972, des brutalitÃ©s Ã©taient le plus souvent reprochÃ©es aux membres de la "Section spÃ©ciale" de la police, la plupart des plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es aprÃ¨s l'opÃ©ration Motorman ont visÃ© des actions menÃ©es par l'armÃ©e au cours des arrestations ou immÃ©diatement aprÃ¨s . Les dÃ©positions et rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale soumis par les requÃ©rants et concernant quatre personnes, toutes arrÃªtÃ©es pendant la derniÃ¨re semaine d'aoÃ¹t, seraient rÃ©vÃ©lateurs des types de traitements et de menaces dont un grand nombre de dÃ©tenu s ont fait l'objet . Les requÃ©rants dÃ©clarent que les assassinats de caractÃ¨re sectaire ont atteint leur maximum Ã Belfast en ao0t 1972 et qu'une forme habituelle-de menace consistait Ã dire Ã l'individu arrÃ©tÃ© qu'i1 serait fusillÃ© et son corps dÃ©posÃ© purement et simplement dans un champ s'il ne parlait pas . Vu le climat rÃ©gnant en Irlande du Nord Ã cette Ã©poque, il s'agissait lÃ , selon les requÃ©rants, d'un type de torture psychologique trÃ¨s rÃ©elle . Ils prÃ©tendent que les motifs du recours Ã la torture ont conservÃ© leur double caractÃ¨re, Ã savoir l'obtention de renseignements et d'aveux, Ã©tant donnÃ© que depuis l'instauration du rÃ©gime de l'administration directe, le Ministre de l'Irlande du Nord a constamment exercÃ© de fortes pressions pour que les individus soient convaincus d'infractions pÃ©nales ,
- 111 -
plut8t qu'internÃ©s ou mis en dÃ©tentions . En outre, comme d'autres membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ont Ã©tÃ© tuÃ©s ou blessÃ©s Ã la suite des activitÃ©s de l'IRA, une volontÃ© de revanche est devenue perceptible dans de nombreux rÃ©giments . Comme J 1 es t dit dane une dÃ«position faite par Fr . B ., les brutalitÃ©s gratuites et les chÃ¢timents sommaires infligâ¬s aux terroristes ou aux sympathisants suspects seraient devenus plus frÃ©quents Ã mesure que s'approchait la fin de l'affectation des rÃ©giments en Irlande du Nord . Comme il est dit, par ailleurs, Ã la fois dans la dÃ©position de Fr . B . et dans celle soumise par l'Association pour les droits civiques en Irlande du Nord, de nombreuses Dersonnes, particuliÃ¨rement des adolescents, ont Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ©es Ã plusieurs reprises, et la politique de l'armÃ©e a visÃ©, semble-t-il, non seulement Ã intimider les suspects, mais aussi l'ensemble de la collectivitÃ© . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que l'arrivÃ©e massive de troupes dans les quartiers catholiques a eu pour rÃ©sultat notanunent que les victimes de brutalitÃ©s militaires ont davantage hÃ©sitÃ© Ã se plaindre officiellement . Ilo .-, seulement ces victimes avaient perdu confiance dans la justice en g'r.Ã©ral, mais encore elles avaient grand'peur des reprâ¬sailles . Les requÃ©rants dÃ©clarent que l'Association pour les .]roits civiques en Irlande du Nord a tenu une confÃ©rence internatior.ale les 18, 19 et 20 novembre 1972 ; les participants Ã la confÃ©rence, Ã laquelle assistaient des reprÃ©sentants d e la Ligue internationale des Droits de l'Homnie, du Conseil mondial de la paix et du Conseil national pour les libertÃ©s civiques, ont entendu des plaintes relatives Ã des brutalitÃ©s militaires trÃ©s nombreuses ainsi qu'Ã d'autres cas de fusillades et de tracasseries . Il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© dans un compte rendu sur la confÃ©rence :"Les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve disponibles nous donnent la .conviction que certains rÃ©giments, en particulier ceuxde ;parachutistes, ne cessent de se rendre coupables d'illÃ©galitÃ©s qui aboutissent parfois Ã faire rÃ©gner lÃ¢ terreur dans de vastes secteurs des deux communautÃ©s . Nous avons l'impression .tr8s .nette que l'armÃ©e fait de plus en plus la loi elle-mÃ©me et que les activitÃ©s de certains de ses membres embarassent beaucoup M . Whitelaw . Par ailleurs, nous considÃ©rons que ce comportement-a-Ã©tÃ© enccuragÃ© par la rÃ©pugnance des autoritÃ©s Ã le rÃ©prl :ner" . Les requÃ©rants font ooserver ^~ presque toutes les rÃ©iÃ©lations faites Ã cette Ã©poque indicuent qu'on ouiigeai[ ies suspects ~ garder la station debout, "en position de fouille", pendant des pÃ©riodes assez I^ngues, et que lorsqu'ils tombaient de fa ;igue c'Ã©tait habituellement un prÃ©texte pour les frapper . Si les allÃ©gations ne font pas Ã©tat des longues stations debout contre un mur dont le ;apport Compton avait confirmÃ© la pratique, elles n'en montrent pas moins, selon les requÃ©rants, que la station debout a cont`-nuÃ© d'Ã©tre utilisÃ©e comme un moyen d'exercer des pressions phys'-eues "non violentes" sur les dÃ©tenus .
- 112 -
Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que des allÃ©gations de privation de sommeil ont continuÃ© aussi d'Ã©tre formulÃ©es (cf . par exemple la dÃ©claration du requÃ©rant Donnelly au sujet de son arrestation, le 27 ao6t 1972), encore qu'apparemment les autres techniques Compton d'encapuchonnement, de soumission Ã¢ des bruits, et d'alimentation au pain et S l'eau n'aient plus Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©es de maniÃ¨re systÃ©matique .
DÃ©cembre 1972 - janvier 197 3 . AprÃ¨s les activitÃ©s militaires intenses et les arrestations massives qui ont eu lieu pendant les semaines suivant l'OpÃ©ration Motorman, il semble que le recours systÃ©matique Ã la torture avant et pendant l'interrogatoire ait diminuÃ© . Les plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es ont Ã©tÃ© gÃ©nÃ©ralement de mÃ©me nature que celles enregistrÃ©es en aoÃ»t, accusant l'armÃ©e davantage que la police ; toutefois, elles n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© suffisamment nombreuses pour dÃmontrer l'existence de la pratique systÃ©matique de brutalitÃ©s observÃ©e prÃ©cÃ©demment . FÃ©vrier - avril 197 3 Les requÃ©rants laissent entendre qu'en dÃ©pit des dÃ©mentis que le OouvernementdÃ©fendeur fait paraitre dans la presse, une nouvelle campagne d'envergure avait Ã©tÃ© lancÃ©e depuis peu pour dÃ©truire l'IRA . Si l'Ã©limination des terroristes demeurait un objectif lÃ©gitime pour l'armÃ©e, cette nouvelle campagne a provoquÃ© une nouvelle recrudescence de tracasseries et de manoeuvres d'intimidation de la part de l'armÃ©e, et il y a eu des indices trÃ©s sÃ©rieux que les tortures physiques et psychologiques avaient repris sur une grande Ã©chelle . Les plaintes visaient dÃ©sormais presque exclusivement l'armÃ©e et pouvaient entrer dans deux catÃ©gories distinctes . La premiÃ¨re catÃ©gorie comprend les cas de brutalitÃ©s physiques . Ce traitement semblait souvent Ã©tre conÃ§u comme un prÃ©alabl e
aux interrogatoires par la police, mais il Ã©tait aussi de plus en plus pratiquÃ© Ã titre de chÃ¢timent sommaire Ã l'encontre de toute personne jugÃ©e non coopÃ©rative par l'armÃ©e . Trois cas ont Ã©tÃ© citÃ©s comme illustrant particuliÃ©rement bien ce dernier aspect . Les plaintes de la seconde catÃ©gorie visaient essentiellement des tortures psychologiques, l'interrogÃ© Ã©tant gÃ©nÃ©ralement menacÃ© d'Ã©tre fusillÃ© s'il ne donnalt pas des renseignements, et d'Ã©tre A nouveau arrÃ©tÃ© s'il se plaignait d'avoir Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ© . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que, comme il es t fait observer dans la dÃ©claration de Fr . - ., nombre des personnes arrÃ©tÃ©es Ã©taient des adolescents, et qu'en dÃ©pi t de la suppression de cette technique comme mÃ©thode de dÃ©sorientation, il paraissait clair que la technique de privation de sommeil Ã©tait alors appliquÃ©e pour aggraver _ peur e . En outre, les personnes interrogÃ©es tl'inquÃ©decsjun ont souvent Ã©tÃ© menacÃ©es d'Ã©tre interr .Ã©es 7 Long Kesh, de subir des violences physiques, etc .
- 11i -
Le nombre de plaintes n'a certes pas Ã©tÃ© aussi Ã©levÃ© que pendant la pÃ©riode prÃ©cÃ©dente, mais ceci n'a pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ» i une diminution effective du nombre ou de la sÃ©vÃ©ritÃ© des cas de brutalitÃ©s, mais, d'une part, Ã la peur croissante Ã©prouvÃ©e par ceux qui avaient Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ©s et, d'autre part, Ã leur rÃ©pugnance Ã¨ faire des dÃ©clarations, parce que la population catholique ne croyait pratiquement plus Ã l'existence des recours judiciaires ou quasi judiciaires . Les requÃ©rants soutiennent que si les manoeuvres d'intimidation ont existÃ© dans une certaine mesure depuis le dÃ©but des mesures d'internement, elles ont fortement augmentÃ© depuis la mise en oeuvre de la tactique de "saturation" adoptÃ©e lors de l'OpÃ©ration Motorman . Nombre de ceux qui Ã© taient arrÃ©tÃ© s et battue auraient Ã« tÃ© accusÃ©s ultÃ©rieurement d'avoir brutalisÃ© un membre des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, d'avoir rÃ©sistÃ© lors de leur arrestation, ou d'avoir eu un comportement agressif, ceci afin tout Ã la fois de jeter le doute sur la vÃ©racitÃ© de toute allÃ©gation ultÃ©rieure de brutalitÃ©s et d'expliquer les prÃ©judices corporels subis . La perte de confiance dans la loi a Ã©tÃ© soulignÃ©e avec force, selon les requÃ©rants, dans une dÃ©claration conjointe de la Ligue internationale des Droits de l'Hcmme et du Conseil national pour les libertÃ©s civiques, dans laquelle a=tÃ© rÃ©clamÃ©e la crÃ©ation immÃ©diate d'un mÃ©canisme indÃ©pendant c .h.argÃ© d'examiner les plaintes contre les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© -ette perte de confiance, qui a Ã©tÃ© l'un des facteurs qui a Ã¯onduit Ã la crÃ©ation de l'Association pour la justice par le . droit, a fait l'objet d'un mÃ©morandur. dÃ©taillÃ© sur l'inÃ©galitÃ© devant l'application de la loi, Ã©tabli par Fr . B . et adress Ã©
Ã l'Attorney General du Royaume-Uni . Les requÃ©rants dÃ©clarent, par ailleurs, que l e :j mai 1973, un caporal de l'armÃ©e britannique, accusÃ© d'avoir br?sÃ© le bras d'un Ã©colier dÃ©tenu, a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© innocent, oier. que ce militaire ait reconnu avoir menacÃ© ce garÃ§cn e t ? avoir coupÃ© les cheveux avec un couteau de poche . Cette affaire ainsi que l'acquittement, prononcÃ© en mars, de deux agents de la police judiciaire et d'un militaire accusÃ©s d'avoir brutalisÃ© les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, a contribuÃ© Ã rÃ©duire encore le peu de confiance que la communautÃ© catholique gardait dans le systÃ©me judiciaire . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent qu'Ã¢ l'Ã©poque oÃ¹ ils ont soumis leurs observations, il n'Ã©tait pas possible de savoir si les tortures diminuaient ou restaient au mÃ©me niveau . Ils dÃ©c'arent que quatre incidents particuliers enregistrÃ©s en mai ont dÃ©montrÃ© que les mÃ©mes types de mauvais traitements psychologiques et de graves brutalitÃ©s p`.ysiques se poursuivaient En outre, l'encapuchonnement de deux des hommes impliquÃ©s et l'obligation faite Ã© un autre de garder la "position de fouille" cendent deux heures et demie font naitre des doutes sur la question de savoir si les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© avaient vraiment tctalement abandonnÃ© les techniques Comaton .
- 114 -
Les requÃ©rants procÃ¨dent ensuite Ã la description des mÃ©thodes de torture allÃ©guÃ©es . Ils dÃ©clarent que la situation en Irlande du Nord diffÃ©rait de celle de la Ci rÃ¨ce, oÃ¹ une seule technique de torture (la falanga) Ã©tait appliquÃ©e de maniÃ«re systÃ«matique Ã ceux auxquels on voulait arracher des renseignements . Ceci Ã©tant, mÃ©me dans l'Affaire grecque, les "passages Ã tabac" demeuraient la forme de torture la plus courante . Les requÃ©rants dÃ©clarent que depuis l'institution de l'internement, un grand nombre de mÃ©thodes diffÃ©rentes de torture ont Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©es, dont certaines ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©crites dans une dÃ©claration de Fr . B . Ces mÃ©thodes ont variÃ© dans le temps et dans l'espace et selon les rÃ©giments (ou les policiers), mais on peut distinguer plusieurs types de traitements . Les requÃ©rants produisent une liste numÃ©rotÃ©e de 15 formes de torture, dont ils prÃ©tendent qu'elles ont Ã©tÃ© et sont encore appliquÃ©es . Cette liste prÃ©sente tout d'abord les mÃ©thodes les plus anciennes, puis les applications rÃ©centes . Selon les requÃ©rants, elle n'est pas exhaustive .
Cette liste comprend les cinq "techniques Compton "(nos1Ã 5),parmilesqu l'encapuhonemt,lastio n debout et la privation de sommeil continueraient d'Ã©tre appliquÃ©es, le "passage Ã tabac" (nÂ° 6), la "Calanga" (no 7), dont il existerait au moins un cas prouvÃ©, l'obligation de se tenir debout au-dessus d'un fourneau Ã©lcctrique (nÂ° 8), l'obligation de fixer les yeux sur un mur blanc parsemÃ© de trous (nÂ° 9), technique qui a pour effet d'accroitre le sentiment d'isolement et de dÃ©sorientation, l'Ã©lectrochoc, l'administration de drogues, les menaces de mort, l'humiliation, le chantage et la corruption, et les tortures faisant appe l Ã l'eau . Des dÃ©clarations faites par divers individus illustreraient les techniques mentionnÃ©es . Les requÃ©rants traitent ensuite des lieux oÃ¹ les tortures seraient pratiquÃ©es . S'ils ne prÃ©tendent pas que des brutalitÃ©s et des tortures se pratiquent rÃ©guliÃ¨rement dans tous les commissariats et casernes de police d'Irlande du Nord, ils n'en dÃ©clarent pas moins que les dÃ©clarations faisant Ã©tat de sÃ©vices pratiquÃ©s par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© visent dee lieux rÃ©partis sur presque tout le territoire . La trÃ©s grande maJoritÃ« des incidente signalÃ©s ont eu lieu Ã l'intÃ©rieur et aux alentours de Belfast, ceci Ã«tant dÃ» non seulement au fait que BelCas t
est la principale agglomÃ©ration d'Irlande du Nord et se caractÃ©rise par un taux Ã©levÃ© d'activitÃ©s dÃ©ployÃ©es par les terroristes et les forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, mais aussi parce que les organisations pour les droits civiques ainsi que d'autres crganisations peuvent disposer d'un meilleur systÃ¨me de colÅ¸ecte de renseignements . Toutefois, les allÃ©gations Ã©manant de zones extÃ©rieures Ã Belfast, notamment d'Armagh, de Newry et de Londonderry, permettent, selon les requÃ©rants, de conclure quoles pratiques visÃ©espar la prÃ©sente requÃªte sont d'applicaticn gÃ© .^.Ã©rale dans toute l'Irlande du Nord
.15-
_es requÃ©rants citent diffÃ©rents endroits oÃ¹ des sÃ©vices a_raient Ã©tÃ© pratiquÃ©s . A une seule exception prÃ¨s peut-Ã©tre, il n'existe pas, selon les requÃ©rants, un centre unique de torture, quoique certains emplacements aient est prÃ©tendumen : fa!t l'objet de nombreuses plaintes . Il soutenu que cette dispersion des tortures et des brutalitÃ©s dÃ©montre :'existence de la politique globale des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, qui consiste non pas Ã isoler et interroger seulement des suspects importants ou bien informÃ©s, mais plutbt Ã extraire de l'ensemble de la population catholique de trÃ¨s nombreux renseignements de second ordre . En outre, la rotat`_cn rÃ©guliÃ©re des unitÃ©s affectÃ©es dans le nord se traduirait par un rÃ©gime susceptible de varier considÃ©rablement dans le temps et selon les districts .
B.
Argumentatlon du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur quant aux cuestionsÃ¢Ã© Pa i
Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait valoir tout d'abord qu'un requÃ©rant invoquant 1'article 25 de la Convention n'est pas receâ¢:able Ã soulever la question de l'existence d'une pratique administrative en tant que telle, et que cette questior, est Ã©trangÃ¨re au point soulevÃ© dans la prÃ©sente affaire, =_utrement dit celui de savoir si l'un quelconque des requÃ©rants a subi un treitement contraire Ã l'article 3 . I1 n'entre pas dans le dÃ©tail des allÃ©gations des requÃ©rants concernant l'existence et la nature de la pratique allÃ©guÃ©e . Toutefois, il conteste qu'une quelconque pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3 ait existÃ© en Irlande du Nord Ã l'Ã©poque des faits, et il prÃ©tend que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve soumis ? :a Commission rÃ©vÃ¨lent que la politique et la pratique des autori=Ã©s d'Irlande du Nord ont toujours consistÃ© Ã interdire et empÃ©cher les mauvais traitements et, si mauvais traitement il y a eu, Ã en punir les auteurs . _ reconnait, toutefois, que sur le plan de la Conventiz,n, la question peut se poser de savoir si une prÃ©tendue pratique administrative prive d'efficacitÃ© les recours '_nternes . Il fait valoir que rien dans les prÃ©sentes affaires ne rÃ©vÃ¨le l'existence d'une pratique ayant, ou susceptib_e d'avoir, pour effet d'entraver l'exercice des voies de recours internes . LeGouvernement dÃ©clare qu'au cours de la pÃ©riode comprise entre le mois d'aoÃ»t 19 6 9 et le 30 novembre 1973, l'Iriar.de du Norda Ã©tÃ© le thÃ©Ã¢tre de violentes activitÃ©s terror'-stes . 735 personnes (dont 281 membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©) sont mortes, victimes du terrorisme ; 9 .523 autres personnes (dont 1 .899 membres des forces de sâ¬curitÃ©) ont Ã©tÃ© blessâ¬es dans les mÃªmes circonstances pendant cette pÃ©riode . Le terrorisme a Ã©tÃ© Ã l'origirie de 3 .568 explosions et de plus de 101 millions de livres de dÃ©gÃ¢ts matÃ©riels . Le Gouvernement prÃ©cise que les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© on ;, pour :niss :on de rÃ©pr'-me : ces activitÃ©s et de maintenir la paix entre les co :.rt:unautÃ©s protestante et catholique, dont les menbres exvÃ© nisces sont responsables de ces violences . :1 dÃ©clare qu e .
- 116 -
les militaires et les agents de police reprÃ©sentent et savent qu'ils reprÃ©sentent une cible de choix pour les assassina et qu'aussi bien en service qu'en dehors du service ils sont menacÃ©s d'Ã©tre les victimes d'un tireur ou d'un poseur de mine ou de bombe . Les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ont appris, dans ces conditions, qu'une arrestation doit Ã©tre opÃ©rÃ©e aussi rapidement que possible . Toute hÃ©sitation provoquerait le ti r d'un tireur isolÃ© ou une manifestation violente des spectateurs . Lorsque pareils agissements sont redoutÃ©s ou lorsque des indices font croire Ã l'existence d'une embuscade, il peut arriver que les arrestations soient opÃ©rÃ©es Ã la hÃ¢te et parfois avec brutalitÃ© . Le Gouvernement dÃ©clare que dans ce contexte, il y a probablement des cas od l'on recourt Ã davantage de force qu'il n'est nÃ©cessaire pour opÃ©rer une arrestation, ou encore des cas oG une personne soup Ã§ onnÃ©e de terrorisme est maltraitÃ©e par des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© qui viennent de voir tomber l'un des leurs sous les balles et ont vu les effets terribles des jets de bombe sur des passants innocents . Le Gouvernement ne cherche Ã justifier ni le recours Ã plus de force qu'il n'est nÃ©cessaire, ni les mauvais traitements, mais il juge nÃ©cessaire d'attirer l'attention sur la situation car c'est Ã partir de ces exemples que les requÃ©rants invitent la Commission Ã conclure Ã l'existenc e d'un systÃ¨me ou d'une pratique prÃ©mÃ©ditÃ©s . Selon le Gouvernement, la situation se prÃ©sente diffÃ©remment ; ces incidents son t une des caractÃ©ristiques inÃ©vitables d'une campagne de terrorisme et des rÃ©actions qu'elle engendre . Loin d'excuser ces traitements, le Gouvernement et les autoritÃ©s concernÃ©es ont pris des mesures pour rÃ©duire ces incidents au minimum . Les autoritÃ©s militaires et policiÃ¨res ont toujours eu des directives permanentes ou de service interdisant de maltraiter les personnes en Ã©tat d'arrestation ou en prison, et prescrivant la maniÃ¨re de traiter les individus en cours d'interrogatoire . Les observations du Gouvernement comportent en annexe : 1 . les instructions gÃ©nÃ©rales du RUC concernant le traitement des dÃ©tenus (Code du RUC, article 1380, et RÃ¨glement disciplinaire du RUC, article 629) :
2 . un extrait de la directive sur les interrogatoires pratiquÃ©s par les militaires dans le cadre d'opÃ©rations de sÃ©curitÃ© intÃ©rieure, annexÃ©e au Rapport Parker . Selon le Couvernement, ces deux directi :es ^taient en vigueur Ã toutes les Ã©poques visÃ©es par la prÃ©sente requÃ©te . Les directives et instructions concernant le traitement des dÃ©tenus auraient Ã© tÃ© renouvelÃ©es et renforcÃ©es . L'Attorney Genera l a donnÃ© les dÃ©tenus :
instructions suivantes au sujet du
- l'-Ã -
traitement des
"J'ai fait savoir Ã la police et Ã l'armÃ©e que les interrogatoires, au' :ls soient pratiquÃ©e en vertu des pouvoirs ordinaires de police ou des dispositions de la loi sur les pouvoirs spÃ©ciaux, doivent Ã©tre conduits conformÃ©ment Ã la loi ; il s'ensuit que ces interrogatoires ne doivent Ã©tre pratiquÃ©s qu'Ã¢ condition que la personne interrogÃ©e soit dÃ©tenue dans des conditions raisonnables et qu'elle ait la possibilitÃ© de prendre de l'exercice, de se rafraichir, de prendre ses repas et se reposer . J'ai fait savoir qu'en aucune circonstance un dÃ©tenu ne doit Ãªtre brutalisÃ© ou intimidÃ©, et que si une personne, quelle q~~'elle soit, brutalisait un dÃ©tenu, elle s'exposerait Ã des poursuites immÃ©diates . J'ai indiquÃ©, par ailleurs, que si ces instructions Ã©taient enfreintes et si des brutalitÃ©s quelconques Ã©taient signalÃ©es, le Procureur CÃ©nÃ©ral entamerait des poursuites . " Le Gouvernement prÃ©cise que lors de plusieurs rÃ©unions avec le Commissaire principal et l'Officier GÃ©nÃ©ral Commandant en Chef ( les premiÃ¨res ont eu lieu trÃ¨s peu de temps aprÃ¨s l'instauration du rÃ©gime de l'administration directe) des Ministres ont insistÃ© pour que les individus arrÃ©tÃ©s ne soient pas brutalisÃ©s . Par ailleurs, des instructions Ã©crites on t Ã©tÃ© diffusÃ©es . Le Gouvernement attire l'attention notamment sur les instructions suivantes : Le 24 avril 1972, les Forces ArmÃ©es ont adressÃ© aux Brigades des instructions intitulÃ©es "Arrestations opÃ©rÃ©es selon les procÃ©dures prÃ©vues par la loi sur les Pouvoirs SpÃ©ciaux" . L'annexe Ã ces instructions contient des directives permanentes concernant le traitement des personnes arrÃ©tÃ©es, directives qui proscrivent expressÃ©ment les sÃ©vices . Le 26 avril 1972, le RUC a pris une directive (64/72) concernant les arrestations, qui a insistÃ© sur le fait que les instructions en vigueur relatives au traitement des dÃ©tenus, qui interdisaient dÃ©j Ã les mauvais traitements, devaient Ã©tre respectÃ©es et qu'il importait de ne pas recourir Ã plus de force qu'il n'est nÃ©cessaire et de ne pas infliger inutilemen t des dommages corporels . Un compte rendu d'une rÃ©union qui a eu lieu Ã Belfast, le 25 juillet 1972, entre l'Attorney General et l'Officier GÃ©nÃ©ral Commandant en Chef, contient les observations suivantes :
- 118 -
"L'Attorney Ceneral a fait une distinction entre, d'une part, l'arrestation ordinaire d'un malfaiteur sur la base de preuves qui seront portÃ©es Ã l'apprÃ©ciation d'un tribunal et, d'autre part, l'arrestation, en vertu de la loi sur les pouvoirs spÃ©ciaux, d'un individu soupÃ§onnÃ© d'activitÃ©s terroristes, arrestation qui aboutira Ã l'interrogatoire de ce dernier . Cela est parfaitement lÃ©gal, pourvu que l'interrogatoire consiste en des questions approfondies et persistantes et soit conduit de maniÃ¨re raisonnable et civilisÃ©e, Ã dÃ©faut de tout recours aux techniques proscrites ou Ã des mÃ©thodes analogues . "
EnaoÃ»t 1972, en application d'une directive ministÃ©rielle sur les interrogatoires, les Forces ArmÃ©es et la Police ont Ã©mis des instructions supplÃ©mentaires concernant le traitement des personnes en cours d'arrestation ou d'interrogatoire, instructions qui soulignaient la nÃ©cessitÃ© de ne pas recourir Ã des brutalitÃ©s . Le Gouvernement a annexÃ© Ã son Contre-MÃ©moire des copies des ordonnances mentionnÃ©es aux alinÃ©as (a) et (b) . Les directives et instructions donnÃ©es Ã l'armÃ©e et au RUC, mentionnÃ©es Ã l'alinÃ©a (d) ci-dessus, sont prÃ©sentÃ©es dans d'autres rubriques de cette Annexe . Le Gouvernement dÃ©clare avoir fait diligence pour enquÃªter sur les allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements . La crÃ©ation de la Commission Compton est intervenue quelques jours seulement aprÃ¨s l'enregistrement des allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements formulÃ©es Ã la suite desarrestations opÃ©rÃ©es en aoGt 1971 . A la suite de la publication, le 3 novembre 1971, du rapporâ¢t de cette Commission sur le recours Ã certaines techniques d'interrogatoire, une autre Commission (la Commission Parker) a Ã©tÃ© crÃ©Ã©e en novembre pour enquÃªter sur ces techniques . Suite Ã la publication du rapport de la Commission Parker, le Premier Ministre a annoncÃ© que le Gouvernement avait dÃ©cidÃ© que ces techniques ne seraient plus appliquÃ©es dorÃ©navant pour faciliter les interrogatoires . Il a fait valoir que lorsqu'un membre des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, qu'il s'agisse de l'armÃ©e ou de la police, fait l'objet d'une plainte allÃ©guant que son comportement peut constituer une infraction pÃ©nale, les au-oritÃ©s civiles enquÃªten t sur l'affaire . Des enquÃªtes ont Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©es par des policiers, sous l'autoritÃ© du Commissaire princ?pal . Les comptes rendu s de ces enquÃªtes ont ensuite Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã des autor :tÃ©s Atrangzres aux forces de police ; avant l'institution du rÃ©gime de l'administration directe, ils Ã©taient hatituellement soumis 3u Procureur principal de la Couronne pour l'Irlande du Mord (Chief Crown Solicitor for tJorthern 'reland ;, qu'- les transmetcait au Procureur GÃ©nÃ©ral pour :'Irlande du Nord ; depuis le 31 mars 1972, ces comptes rend~~s sont scumis au Chef du "arquet, auquel il revient de dire s"_'- y a :ieu ou non de poursuivre . Les autoritÃ©s militaires cocpÃ¨rent pleinemen t
- 119 -
Ã la rÃ©alisation de ces enquÃ©tes - par exemple en communiquant Ã la police des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve en leur possession - mais lorsqu'une infraction pÃ©nale est dÃ©noncÃ©e, les enquÃ©tes e t la dÃ©cision c :.ncernant la poursuite relÃ¨vent des autoritÃ©s civiles . Il est lÃ©clarÃ©, par ailleurs, qu'un Officier commandant d'une unitÃ© de l'armÃ©e peut prendre une sanction disciplinaire, s'i1 estime que la mauvaise conduite d'un soldat, tout en ne constituant pas une infraction pÃ©nale , a enfreint la discipline militaire . Il existe aussi une procÃ©dure, prÃ©vue par l'article 13 de la loi sur la police (Irlande du Nord) en vertu de laquelle le Commissaire Principal est tenu d'enquÃªter sur les plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es contre des membres du RUC . S'il ressort qu'une infraction pÃ©nal e
a peut-Ã©tre Ã©tÃ© commise, il appartient au Chef du Parquet de dÃ©cider ou non de poursuivre . Le Gouvernement prÃ©cise que le Bureau du Chef du Parquet a Ã©tÃ© crÃ©Ã© en mars 1972 . Copie de l'ordonnance portant crÃ©ation de ce Bureau est annexÃ© au Contre-MÃ©moire du Gouvernement . L'ordonnance dÃ©crit, par ailleurs, les fonctions du Chef da Parquet . Celui-ci n'a de comptes Ã rendre qu'Ã l'dttorney General . Copies des directives adressÃ©es pa r l'4t :orr,e,: i:e .^.era' au Chef du Parquet ont Ã©galement Ã©tÃ© produites . Le Gouvernement fait valoir que le dÃ©pÃ´t d'une plainte n'entraine pas nÃ©cessairement l'ouverture de poursuites . L'intÃ©rÃ©t de la justice n'est pas servi par l'ouverture de poursuites fondÃ©es sur des preuves insuffisantes ou peu sÃ©rieuses . L'une des conditions essentielles rÃ©side dans l'existence de preuves suffisantes sur l'identitÃ© du prÃ©tendu dÃ©linquant ; Ã©tablir qu'une plainte pour mauvais traitemen t est probablement fondÃ©e est une chose, mais Ã©tablir avec suffisamment de cectitude que telle ou telle personne est responsable est une tout autre chose . La Commission n'est pas sans savoir que les allÃ©gations de mauvais traitement peuvent Ã¨tre dÃ©formÃ©es, exagÃ©rÃ©es ou mÃ©me controuvÃes Ã de s fins politiques ;Cf . l'Affaire grecque, Vol . II, Partie 1, p . 16) . Pareille campagne de propagande, qui vise Ã multiplier les plaintes et Ã exagÃ©rer les prÃ©judices corporels subis, est typique des efforts dÃ©ployÃ©s par l'IRA pour jeter le discrÃ©dit sur les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Dans certains cas, c'est peut-Ãªtr e le plaignant qui s'est infligÃ© Ã lui-mâ¬me des dommages eeraorels ; dans d'autres cas, ces dommages ont pu rÃ©sulter de la rÃ©cistar.ce violente qu'il a opposÃ©e lors de son arrestation, ou encore de l'agression dont il a Ã©tÃ© l'objet en prison de la part d'un autre dÃ©tenu . Que cela prouve ou non l'existence d'une campagne menÃ©e par l'IRA pour discrÃ©dite r les forces Ce sÃ©curitÃ© en Irlande du Nord, au moins vingt-quatre plaignants n'ont pas coopÃ©rÃ© Ã l'instruction de leur plainte et, dans treize cas au moins, la plainte a Ã©tÃ© retirÃ©e .
- 120 -
Il est dÃ©clarÃ©, par ailleurs, que jusqu'a u 30 novembre 1973, le Chef du Parquet a examinÃ© 576 cas de brutalitÃ©sprÃ©tendument infligÃ©es par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, et que des poursuites ontÃ©tÃ© ordonnÃ©es dans 77 ca s
(dont 25 concernant des dÃ©tenus) . Le Chef du Parquet a renoncÃ© Ã poursuivre dans un certain nombres de cas, parce que le prÃ©judice corporel n'Ã©tait pas prouvÃ© ou que les preuves disponibles faisaient Ã©tat de prÃ©judices corporels bÃ©nins . Le nombre de poursuites ordonnÃ©es a reprÃ©sentÃ© plus de 12 % du nombre de cas dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©s au Chef du Parquet, alors qu'en Arigleterre et au Pays de Galles, 2 .114 cas d'infractions pÃ©nales prÃ©tendument commises par des policiers ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ© :Ã©râ¢Ã©s en 1972 au Chef du Parquet, qui a conseillÃ© d'intenter des poursuites dans 49 cas, soit 2,5 % des cas qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© soumis . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait valoir enfin que mÃªme si la question de l'existence d'Ã»ne pratique administrative de mauvais traitements devait se poser, les renseignements sur les actions qu'il a entreprises pour interdire et empÃ©che r les mauvais traitements dÃ©montrent la faussetÃ© des allÃ©gations des requÃ©rants quant Ã 1'existence de cette pratique contenues dans leurs observations ; de plus, mÃªme si ces allÃ©gations Ã©taient Ã©tayÃ©es, elles ne suffiraient pas Ã Ã©tablir l'existence d'une telle pratique . Le Gouvernement rejette donc ces allÃ©gations et rÃ©serve sa position Ã leur Ã©gard . Argumentation des ' requÃ©rants en droi t Dans leurs conclusions au stade de la recevabilitÃ©, les requÃ©rants ont soutenu qu'ilsÃ©taient recevables Ã soulever la question de la compatlbilitÃ© avec la Conventio ndelaprtiqueadminstraivealÃ©gue, tilsont iÃ©avoi r soulevÃ© devant la Commission, comme le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur l'a prÃ©tendu, deux questions distinctes, Ã savoir la question de la violation de leurs droits individuels et un grie f in abstracto ou de caractÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©ral . Ils n'ont cherchÃ© Ã etat liri Ã© istence d'une pratiqiie administrative de tortures ou de traitements inhumains et dÃ©gradants qu'en liaison avec leur allÃ©gation selon laquelle l'application directe de cette pratique Ã chacun d'entre eux a violÃ© leurs droits garantis par l'article 3 . A ce sujet, les requÃ©rants se sont aussi rÃ©fÃ©rÃ©s Ã la dÃ©c'_s'-on rendue par la Commission, le 16 dÃ©cembre 1972 (FequÃ©te nÂ° 5155 / 71, Kjeldsen contre le Danemark) qui dÃ©clarait recevable un grief touchant Ã la rÃ©glementation de de l'Ã©ducation sexuelle obligatoire, alors mÃ©me que ladite rÃ©glementa :ion n'avait pas encore Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e aux requÃ©rants en oues :`-on ou Ã leur fille . Selon les requÃ©rants, il s'agissait 1i, techniquement, d'une plainte pour une violation Ã venir, et ils soutiennent qu'il n'y a pas lieu de distinguer Ã cet Ã©gard entre des dispositions lÃ©gislatives et des pratiques administratives .
- 121 -
Les requÃ©rants font valoir, par ailleurs, que le droit d'une Haute ?srtie Contractante de soulever une question concernant la ce .~patibilitÃ© avec la Convention de mesures lÃ©gislatives et de pratiques administratives ne peut porter atteinte au droit que l'article 25 reconnait ~ une personne physique de soilever la question de l'existence d'une pratique administrative dont elle a Ã©tÃ© directement victime . La distinct!on faite par la Convention entre la capacitÃ© pour agir d'ur. E-a : et celle d'un particulier serait prÃ©servÃ© e du fait que les requÃ©tes individuelles doivent satisfaire aux conditions Ã©noncÃ©es aux articles 25 et 27 . Dans leurs observations Ã©crites sur le fond, les requÃ©rants n'ont pas prÃ©sentÃ© d'arguments supplÃ©mentaires sur ce point . 7ans '_eur lettre du 14 aoÃ»t 1973, les requÃ©rants ont soutenu que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'avait produit aucun argument nouveau allant Ã l'encontre du droit d'un requÃ©rant, se fondant sur l'article 25, de plaider l'existence d'une pratique administrative, sauf Ã relever que l'exercice de ce droit embarrasserait la Haute Partie Contractante faisant l'objet de la plainte . Ceci constituait une rÃ©ponse Ã la dÃ©claration contenue dans la lettre du Gouvernement d u 17 juillet, selon laquelle la dÃ©cision de dÃ©clarer la requÃ©te recevable aurait notamment pour effet que le champ d'investigation de la Commission aux stades ultÃ©rieurs ne serait pas limitÃ© aux prÃ©tendues violations de l'article 3 dont les requÃ©rants se sont plaints, mais obligerait Ã enquÃ©ter su r un grand nombre d'autres incidents sur lesquels les requÃ©ran[s chercheit Ã se fonder pour Ã©tablir l'existence d'une pratique administrative de mauvais traitements . Les requÃ©rants font valoir que les mesures prises par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur - ou son inaction - lorsqu'il s'est agi de donner suite aux plaintes dirigÃ©es contre les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© - ceci combinÃ© Ã son refus persistant d e reconnaitre que ces plaintes avaient quelque fondement constituent la tolÃ©rance officielle des mauvais traitements, que la jurisprudence de la Commission exige pour Ã©tablir l'existence d'une pratique administrative . Il n'appartient pas aux requsr3nts de prouver que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a encouragÃ© activement le comportement qu'ils incriminent . Par " tolÃ©rance officielle ", il faut entendre que les actes de torture ou de mauvais traitements, quoiqu e '_â¬gaux, sont tolÃ©rÃ©s en ce sens que les supÃ©rieurs des personnes immÃ©diatement responsables connaissent oes a_tes, n,ais ne font rien pour punir leurs auteurs ou e :npÃ©cher :eur rÃ©pÃ©tition, ou que l'autoritÃ© supÃ©rieure, face Ã de nombreuses dÃ©nonciations, se montre indiffÃ©rente en refusant toute enquÃªte sÃ©rieuse sur leur vÃ©ritÃ© ou leur faussetÃ© ou que dans la prcc=tlure judiciaire ces plaintes ne sont pas entendues Ã©qui :at'-enent ."
- 122 -
Les requÃ©rants font valoir que l'absence de sanctions et l'indiffÃ©rence officielle ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ©es en l'espÃ¨ce . S'agissant du second Ã©lÃ©ment nÃ©cessaire pour prouver l'existence d'une pratique administrative, Ã savoir l a rÃ© Ã©tition des actes de torture, les requÃ©rants font rÃ©fÃ©rence opinion e a Commission seloniaquelle "il serait dÃ©raisonnable et lÃ encore contraire au sens de l'article 3 de soutenir qu'une pratique administrative n'est Ã©tablie que si tous les prisonniers politiques ou du moins leur majoritÃ© sont soumis Ã la torture ou Ã de mauvais traitements . . . Par rÃ«pÃ©titlOn des actes , il faut entendre un bon nombre de tortures ou de mauvais traitements qui correspondent Ã une situation gÃ©nÃ©rale" . (L'Affaire rec ue, Rapport de la Commission, Vol . 2, Part e, p . Les requÃ©rants concluent que les preuves qu'ils ont produites dÃ©montrent au-delÃ de toute hÃ©sitation que des personnes soupÃ§onnÃ©es d'infractions de caractÃ¨re terrorist .e ou dÃ©tenues pour des motil's politiques en Irlande du Nord ont Ã©tÃ© soumises de la part des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© Ã une pratique administrative systÃ©matique de tortures et d'autres mauvais traitements . Ces tortures et ces mauvais traitements ne sont qu'un aspect du systÃ¨me dl"interrogatoiresapprofondis" pratiquÃ© par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur et sont aussi utilisÃ©s, dans certains cas, par les militaires pour infliger des chÃ¢timents sommaires . D.
Argumentation en droit du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r
Le Gouvernement rappelle qu'il a fait valoir au stade de la recevabilitÃ© qu'un requÃ©rant se fondant sur l'article 25 n'est pas recevable b soulever la question de l'existence d'une pratique administrative en tant que telle . Il maintient sa thÃ¨se sur ce point et rÃ©sume sa position comme suit : "a . il est bien Ã©tabli que lorsqu'elle est saisie d'une requÃ©te fondÃ©e sur l'article 25, la Commission n'est pas compÃ©tente pour examiner in abstracto la question de la conformitÃ© de la lÃ©gisla ion :e avec les dispositions de la Convention ,
b . ce mÃ©me principe s'applique aussi bien, sino n a fortiori , 9 la question de la conformitÃ© d'une prat.que allÃ©guÃ©e avec les dispositions de la Convention ; c . dans le cas d'une loi, la fonction de la Commission, ainsi que de la Cour, est de se prononcer "sur le cas concret de l'applicatior. d'une telle loi Ã l'Ã©gard du requÃ©rant et dans la mesure oÃ¹ celui-ci se trouverait, de ce fait, lÃ©sÃ© dans l'exercice de 1'un des droits garantis par la Convention ." (Annuaire 5, pages 335-337) ;
- 123 -
une pratique administrative consiste en une sÃ©rie de faits ou d'actes, et il rÃ©sulte de l'application du principe Ã©noncÃ© Ã l'alinÃ©a (c) ci-dessus Ã une prÃ©tendue pratique administrative que la question Ã trancher porte sur le fait ou l'acte particulier ayant affectÃ© le requÃ©rant, acte ou fait dont on allÃ¨gue qu'ils font partie de la sÃ©rie . En tranchant cette question particuliÃ¨re, la Commission a Ã©puisÃ© sa mission ; elle n'a pas Ã examiner si le fait,ou l'acte particulier, fait partie d'une sÃ©rie ; si elle procÃ©dait ainsi, cela Ã©quivaudrait Ã examiner des ou=stions dÃ©passant le cadre des faits dont le requÃªrant prÃ©tend avoir Ã©tÃ© la victime . Cet examen global reviendrait Ã "examiner le point de savoir s'il y a eu ou non violation des droits d'autres personnes physiques, reconnus par la Converition", examen que la Commission a jugÃ© en l'espÃ¨ce ne pas pouvoir entreprendre (cf . DÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ©, yar . 2, p . 37 (1)) . Il en est ainsi particuliÃ¨rement lcrsque, comme dans les prÃ©sentes requÃ©tes, on tente d'infÃ©rer l'existence de la pratique allÃ©guÃ©e de ce oui serait prÃ©tendument advenu Ã des personnes autres que chacun des requÃ©rants ; de mÃ©me, il est fait valoir que la Commission ne peut se prononcer sur une pratique prÃ©tendument Ã©tablie par une sÃ©rie d'actes qui n'ont pas affectÃ© le requÃ©rant, car procÃ©der ainsi reviendrait Ã statuer in abstracto sur la conformitÃ© de la pratique allÃ©guÃ©e avec la Convention . " Le Gouvernement fait observer en outre que lorsqu'un acte particulier (que l'on allÃ¨gue ou non qu'i1 s'inscrit dans le cadre d'une pratique administrative) a Ã©tÃ© commis et a affectÃ© le requÃ©rant, la question qui se pose, sous l'angle de la Convention, est celle de savoir si cet acte a violÃ© la Convention . La question de savoir si l'acte a aussi constituÃ© un aspect d'une pratique administrative est, selon le Gouvernement, non seulement sans pertinence sur le plan de la Convention, mais encore hors de propos . Par ailleurs, il tait valoir qu'il ne faut pas perdre de vue la diffÃ©rence fondamentale de nature entre une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article 2 4 et une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article 25 . Une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article 25 doit Ã©tre dÃ©posÃ©e par un particulier (ou en son nom) et vise Ã obtenir rÃ©paration de ce qui a Ã©tÃ© fait Ã cet individu . Une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article 24 n'a pas besoin d'Ã©tre prÃ©sentÃ©e dans l'intÃ©rÃ©t d'un individu et son obje t ne cDrisiste pas simplement Ã chercher Ã obtenir rÃ©paration de ce qui a Ã©tÃ© fait, mais plutÃ´t, comme il a Ã©tÃ© dit Ã l'occasion de l'A"faire dite de Pfunders : Autriche contre Italie , Ã s1gnTa e .^Ã¢~i Commission une (Annuaire , pages 159, violation de l'ordre public europÃ©en . Le Gouvernement conclu t
( :) Recueil de
dÃ©cisions,
Vol . 43, P . 146 .
- 124 -
qu'une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article
24 est donc affectÃ©e pa r
l'existence d'une pratique administrative d'une autre maniÃ©re qu'une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article 25, et que le principe suivant lequel l'existence d'une pratique administrative peut conduire, dans le cas d'une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article 24, Ã abandonner la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes posÃ©e par l'article 26, ne peut pas s'appliquer, par un raisonnement analogue, au cas d'une plainte fondÃ©e sur l'article 25 . Le Gouvernement souligne que la pratique administrative allÃ©guÃ©e par les requÃ©rants vise pour l'essentiel une pÃ©riode d'activitÃ©s terroristes intenses et violente s en Irlande du Nord . 11 fait aussi observer que les requÃ©rants citent un certain nombre d'allÃ©gations concernant d'autres individus coinme des illustrations d'une prÃ©tendue pratique administrative . Les requÃ©tes visent quatre cas particuliers qui se sont produits en avril 1972 . NÃ©anmoins, les requÃ©rants cherchent en rÃ©alitÃ© Ã Ã©tendre le dÃ©bat Ã toutes les allÃ©gations formulÃ©es Ã l'encontre des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© pendant l'ensemble de la pÃ©riode . Le Gouvernement soutient que la question de savoir si l'un des sept requÃ©rants a subi des traitements contraires Ã l'article 3 peut Ã©tre tranchÃ©e par une enquÃ©te sur ces quatre cas particuliers . Une enquPte portant sur d'autres cas que ces quatre cas spÃ©cifiques est Ã©trangÃ¨re Ã la question de savoir si pareils traitements ont ou non Ã©tÃ© subis par tel ou tel requÃ©rant, et impliquerait l'examen de la question de savoir s'il y a eu violation des droits d'autres individus, garantis par la Conventio n - examen que la Com is ion ne peut pas entreprendre, com e i l a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© dans ladÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© . Une Haute Partie Contractante ne peut Ã©tre tenue de rÃ©pondre aux allÃ©gations concernant une prÃ©tendue pratique administrative, dans une procÃ©dure concernant un individu dÃ©terminÃ©,et sa rÃ©ponse doit se limiter aux faits particuliers qui ont prÃ©tendument affectÃ© cet individu . Le Gouvernement fait valoir que pour ces raisons, toute enquÃªte supplÃ©mentaire, en ce qui concerne l'une des sept prÃ©sentes requÃªtes, sur une prÃ©tendue pratique administrative de mauvais traitements serait tout Ã .la fois incompatible avec la Convention et hors de propos . Il fait valoir, par ailleurs, que pour les raisons avancÃ©es dans les lettres adressÃ©es les 17 juillet et 8 octobre 1973 par scn Agent au SecrÃ©taire de la Commission, une Haute Partie Contractante' ne doit pas Ã©tre tenue de "s'expliquer sur des question s de fond" concernant une prÃ©tendue pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3, soit Ã propos du bien-fondÃ© d' .une des sept prÃ©sentes affaires, soit en ce qui concerne des allÃ©gations de violations de l'article 3 intÃ©ressant un individu autre que chacun des prÃ©sents requÃ©rants .
- 125 -
III . SUR LA QUESTION DE SAVOIR SI LES REQULRANTS ONT SATISrA T OBL GA Ot D' SER VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, SELON A C DE L A CONVENTIO N
Argumentation des requÃ©rant s A l'audience sur la recevabilitÃ©, les requÃ©rants ont fait valoir que l'article 26 ne s'applique pas Ã la prÃ©sente affaire, dans laquelle il a Ã©tÃ© fourni des commencements de preuve de l'existence d'une pratique administrative violant les dispositions de la Convention . Subsidiairement, les requÃ©rants ont soutenu qu'Ã©tant donnÃ© la rÃ©paration qu'ils cherchent Ã obtenir auprÃ¨s de la Commission ainsi que les circonstances rÃ©gnant en Irlande du Nord, ils ne disposaient pas de recours efficaces et suffisants dans le cadre du droit applicable en Irlande du Nord (1) . Dans leurs observations Ã© crites sur le fond, les requÃ©rants n'ont pas fait de plus amples observations sur ce point . Ils ont fait valoir, toutefois, que les tracasseries n'Ã©taient qu'un aspect de la pratique administrative allÃ©guÃ©e et que certains requÃ©rants y avaient eux-mÃ©mes Ã©tÃ© sounis . Dans leur lettre du 14 ao0t 1973, les requÃ©rants ont dÃ©clarÃ© ne pas accepter l'interprÃ©tation que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur donnait de la dÃ©cision de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© . Selon eux, le Gouvernement continuait de prÃ©tendre que la dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© avait pour consÃ©quence de tourner les articles 26 et 27, par . 3, nonobstant le fait qu'il puisse exister des voies de recours internes efficaces et suffisantes qui n'avaient pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©puisÃ©es . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que la Commission a toujours dit clairement - comme elle l'a rÃ©pÃ©tÃ© dans sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© des prÃ©sentes requÃªtes - que l'existence d'une pratique administrative a pour effet de rendre inefficaces et insuffisantes les voies de recours internes . En consÃ©quence, lorsqu'ont Ã©tÃ© produit avec succÃ¨s, comme dans le cadre des prÃ©sentes requâ¬tes, des commencements de preuve de l'existence d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã la Convention, le fait que les voies ;de recours internes n'aient pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©pu i sÃ©es ne fait pas obstacle Ã la recevabilitÃ© des requÃ©tes .
(1) L'argumentation des requÃ©rants Ã cet Ã©gard est rÃ©sumÃ©e dans la dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ©, Recueil de dÃ©cisions, Vol . 43, pp . 74' Ã 145 .
- 126 -
B . Argumentation du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r Le Gouvernement rappelle que, dans sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ©, la Commiesion a joint au fond toute question relative aux recours qui auraierit dÃ» Ã©tre exercÃ«s par chaque requÃ©rant, en tant que prÃ©tendue victime d'actes dÃ©terminÃ©s violant l'article 3 . Cette dÃ©cision implique que lee allÃ©gationa d'actes dÃ©terminÃ©e doivent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme recevables . Le Gouvernement a dÃ©crit dans la premiÃ¨re partie de ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© les voies de recours internes ouvertes aux personnes se prÃ©tendant victimes de mauvais traitements, et notamment de mauvais traitemente tels que ceux allÃ©guÃ©s dans les sept prÃ©sentes affaires . Il fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã ses observations et dÃ©crit succinctement ces recours comme sui t "1 . le droit de la prÃ©tendue victime d'agir en dommagesintÃ«rÃ©ts contre la personne qui lui aurait inflig6 les mauvais traitements, lorsque cette personne eet membre des forces armÃ©es ou du RUC ; le droit de la prÃ©tendue victime, mÃªme si elle n'est pas en mesure d'identifier cette personne, de poursuivre la Couronne ou le Commissaire principal ; ii . s'il apparait comme vraisemblable que les dommages corporels rÃ©sultent d'un acte criminel, le droit d'agir en rÃ©paration par application de la loi de 1968 su r la rÃ©paration des atteintes Ã l'intÃ©gritÃ© des personnes en Irlande du Nord, mÃ©me s'il est impossible d'identifier l'auteur de l'acte ;
iii . selon la gravitÃ© de l'affaire, le droit de poursuivre l'auteur prÃ©tendu pour une ou plusieurs infractions pÃ©nales ; iv . le dÃ©pÃ´t d'une plainte en ouverture d'une procÃ«dure disciplinaire prÃ©vue par la loi de 1970 sur la police en Irlande du Nord ou, Ã©ventuellement, par la lo i de 1955 sur les forces armÃ©es . " Il rappelle que des poursuites ont Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©es contre lee agents de la police judiciaire M . et B . ainsi que contre le soldat C . en raison d'allÃ©gations concernant lee interrogatoires de MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, poursuites Ã l'issue desquellee les trois accusÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ©s pa r le jury . Il insiste sur le fait qu'un jury se compose de particuliers qui dÃ©libÃ¨rent en toute indÃ©pendance et en secret, et dont les motifs ne sont rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e ni Ã la Couronne, ni Ã personne d'autre . Le Oouvernement dÃ©clare que les plaintes dÃ©posÃ©e s par MM . Kelly, Kearns et Carlin ont donnÃ© lieu Ã des enquÃªtes, mais que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve rÃ©unis ont Ã©tÃ© insuffisants pour engager des poursuites pÃ©nales . En vertu de la lÃ©gislation applicable en :rlande du Nord, la culpabilitÃ© d'un accus Ã©
- 127 -
dans un procÃ¨s pÃ©nal doit Ã©tre prouvÃ©e avec une quasicertitude ("beyond all reasonable doubt") . MM . Kelly et Carlin ont refusÃ© de s'entretenir avec l'enquÃ©teur ; M . Kearns s'est refusÃ© Ã dire quoi que ce soit au sujet de sa plainte au responsable de l'enquÃ©te . Une enquÃªte sur les allÃ©gation s de M . McBride est encore en cours, mais lui non plus n'a pas coopÃ©rÃ© Ã cette enquÃªte . Le Gouvernement dÃ©clare que MM . Kelly, Kearns, Carlin et McBride n'ont pas intentÃ© d'action civile en dommagesintÃ©rÃªts ou de procÃ©dure en indemnisation en raison des faits qâ¢,ie chacun d'entre eux allÃ¨gue . Les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy ont assignÃ©, le 16 mai 1972, les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts devant le tribunal rÃ©gional (High Court) . Aucune suite n'a Ã©tÃ© donnÃ©e depuis lors . Le Â°ait que les agerits de la police judiciaire M . et B . et le simple soldat C . aient Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ©s par le jury ne faisait pas obstacle,-selon le Gouvernement, Ã l'introduction d'une procÃ©dure civile, notamment contre le Commissaire principal ou la Couronne . Au civil, les exigences en matiÃ¨re de preuve ,ont moins Ã©levÃ©es et l'on se contente de l'apprÃ©ciation des plus grandes probabilitÃ©s (balance of probabilities) . : .es voies de recours internes ouvertes aux sept Â°equÃ©rants Gtaient suffisantes et efficaces . Aucune preuve n'a Ã©tÃ© produite de l'existence d'une quelconque pratique administrative qui aurait empÃ©chÃ© d'exercer des recours civils ou autres, ou qui aurait rendu ces recours insuffisants pour remÃ©dier aur. violations allÃ©guÃ©es . En consÃ©quence, il n'y a aucune raison pour que les sept requÃ©rants n'exercent pas les recours civils qui leur Ã©taient ouverts pour faire valoir leurs allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements, et le fait qu'ils n'aient pas exercÃ© ces recours rend chacune des sept requÃ©tes irrecevables en vertu de l'article 26 . Le Gouvernement demande, en consÃ©quence, Ã la Commission de rejeter ces sept requâ¬tes par application de l'article 27, par . 3, de la Convention . Le Couvernement soutient par ailleurs que le fait qu'une pratique administrative a Ã©tÃ© allÃ©guÃ©e ne peut pas dispenser les requÃ©rants de satisfaire Ã la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes posÃ©e par l'article 26 . S'agissant du problÃ¨me de l'efficacitÃ© des voies de recours eu Ã©gard 3 l'existence prÃ©tendue d'une pratique administrative, le Gouvernement explique que la principale voie de recours interne est l'action civile en dommages-intÃ©rÃªts . Les vlaintes dÃ©posÃ©es contre les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ont donnÃ© lÃ¯eu Ã quelque ]57 actions civiles . Cinquante trois d'entre elles ont fait '-'zbjet c'uc rÃ¨glement ou ont abouti Ã l'octroi d'une . indemnitÃ© p2cuniair~ par l Ã©s tribunaux .
-
228 -
En ce qui concerne les sept requÃ¨tes, le Gouvernement pense qu'il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© dansses observations qu'il avait pris des mesures pour rÃ©duire autant que possible les cas de mauvais traitements inÃ©vitables dans une situation d e
terrorisme, qu'il avait enquÃ©tÃ© sur les plaintes et qu'il avait poursuivi les dÃ©linquants lorsqu'i1 Ã©tait possible de rÃ©unir des preuves . Loin d'Ãªtre une pratique de mauvais traitements ou de tortures, la pratique administrative est et a Ã©tÃ© d'empÃ©cher ces sÃ©vices ; par ailleurs, ceux qui ont cherchÃ© Ã obtenir des rÃ©parations civiles devant les tr!bur .aux ont pu les obtenir . Non seulement il es'. inexact que les voies de recours lÃ©gales mÃ¨nent Ã un rÃ©sultat dÃ©cevant, mais il n'existe pas de pratioue administrative susceptible d'en rÃ©duire l'efficacitÃ© . Le Gouvernement ajoute que rien dans les cas des sept requÃ©rants n'indique le contrairÃ© . S'agissant de Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, l'Etat s'est acquittÃ© de sa tÃ¢che en entamant des poursuites et en citarit les tÃ©moins disponibles, et rien ne permet de dire que ces poursuites n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© correctement exercÃ©es . En ce qui concerne ]es quatre autres requÃ©rants, Kelly, Kearns, Carlin et McBride, une enquÃ©te a Ã©tÃ© ouverte sur leurs plaintes, mais aucun d'eux n'a acceptÃ© de ccopÃ©rer . D ans ces conditions, le Gouvernement estime que ces requÃ©rants ne sont pas fondÃ©s Ã se plaindre de l'absence de poursuite s ou de mesures disciplinaires . Contrairement Ã d'autres .personnes, aucun des requÃ©rants n'avait usÃ© jusqu'alors des voies civiles qui leur Ã©taient ouvertes . Quatre d'entre eux, MM . Kelly, Kearns, Carlin et McBride n'avaient engagÃ© aucune procÃ©dure . Les trois autres , MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, n'avaient pas donnÃ© suite aux assignations qu'ils avaient lancÃ©es contre les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes . Le Gouvernement conteste qu'ils aient fait l'objet de tracasseries pour avoir intentÃ© une procÃ©dure devant la Commission . MÃ©me si l'on doit accepter les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve tels quels, ces requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© enpÃ¨chÃ©s d'introduire leura requÃ©tes devant la Commission . Il faut aussi rappeler que chacune de ces eept requÃªtes a Ã©tÃ© introduite par un individu qui reconnaissait avoir Ã©tÃ© impliquÃ© dans de s activitÃ©s terroristes . Le S'ait que ces procÃ©dures ont ~'~ tÃ© engagÃ©r . ne pouvait dispenser de surveiller les requÃ©rants, lor_que les circonstances le justifiaient aux yeux des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Le Gouvernement fait valoir, en consÃ©que n ce, qu'il n'existait pas de pratique administrative empÃ©chant d'exercer les recours internes, notamment dans les cas dcs ;ept requÃ©rants la pratique et les exemples de ceux q'.ri ont usÃ© de tel~ recours prouvent le contraite .Ãn ce qui conce :â¢ne les requÃ©rants eux-mÃ©mes, ou bien des mesures adÃ©quates ont Ã©tÃ© nrises prr les aâ¢ .itcr?tÃ©s, ou bien les requÃ©rants ont dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©mant re'us$ Ce prendre Pux-mÃ©mes cu d'3ider Ã prendre les r.esures adÃ©quates en vu e d e l'exercice des recours internes . :ls ne sont donc pas fondÃ©s Ã se plaindre de l'inefficacitÃ© des recours internes .
- 129 -
IV .
CONCLUSION S Des requÃ©rant s
En conclusion, les requÃ«rants prÃ©tendent que la pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3 consistait en l'usag e de "tortures" Ã la fois physiques et psychologiques . En outre, cette pratique a donnÃ© lieu Ã des actes constituant des traitements ou peines inhumains ou dÃ©gradants . Ils font valoir que les traitements subis par les sept requÃ©rants Ã©quivalent manifestement Ã des tortures et sont contraires Ã l'article 3 . Ils prÃ©tendent en dernier lieu que les actes constitutifs de la pratique administrative systÃ©matique de mauvais traitements, pratique dont ils ont montrÃ© qu'elles se caractÃ©rise par la rÃ©pÃ©tition des actes et par la tolÃ©rance officielle, reprÃ©sentent, pris isolÃ©ment des violations de l'article 3 et que la pratique administrative considÃ©rÃ©e dans son ensemble es t donc incompatible avec les articles 1 et 3 de la Convention .
Du Gouvernement dÃ©l'endeu r En conclusion, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur maintient en premier lieu que les sept requÃªtes doivent Ã©tre traitÃ©es comme des requÃ©tes individuelles distinctes soulevant uniquement la question de savoir si les requÃ©rants ont subi des mauvais traitements contraires Ã l'article 3 . La Commission ne peut pas examiner la question de savoir si les traitements allÃ©guÃ©s ne sont qu'un aspect d'une pratique administrative, car cela nÃ©cessiterait un examen des cas d'autres individus qui ne sont pas parties a l'affaire et Ã©quivaudrait Ã une enquÃ©te sur une situation gÃ©nÃ©rale, laquelle serait sans pertinence pour dÃ©terminer si tel ou tel individ u a Ã©tÃ© victime d'une violation de la Convention . Il est'_me qu'il n'existe aucune preuve de l'existence d'une quelconque pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3, ou d'une pratique ayant pour effet d'entraver l'exercice des voies de recours internes . Les requÃ©rants se sont dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment abstenus d'exercer des recours qui Ã©taient efficaces et suffisants . 12 soutient enfin que chacune des requÃ©tes doit Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes et que l'allÃ©gation d'une violation de l'article 3 dans chaque cas est dÃ©pourvue de fondement et devrait donc Ã©tre rejetÃ©e .
- 130 -
CONCLUSIONS DES PARTIES QUANT AU FON D SUR LE POINT DE DES TRAITEMENTS
SAVOIR SI LES REQUERANTS ONT SUBI C E A L'ARTIC-LE 3
Argumentation des requÃ©rant s
Les requÃ©rants soutiennent que les Ã© lÃ©ments de preuve, d'ailleurs incontestÃ©s, qu'ils ont produits, ainsi que les rapports d'.expertise mÃ©dicale, ont permis d'Ã©tablir avec une quasi-certitude que les requÃ©rants Donnell , Bradley et Duff ont Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ©s par des membres des ~ces de sÃ©curit ~ . Ils soulignent que les dÃ©clarations de M . Carlin ont Ã©tÃ© corroborÃ©es dans une certaine mesure par des rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale et d'autres Ã© lÃ©ments de preuve . Ils formulent certaines critiques A l'encontre des preuves soumises par la police et estiment Ã© tabli qu'il a subi des traitements contraires Ã l'article 3, tant au commissariat de police "A" qu'au centre de dÃ©tention de la police . Ils prÃ©tendent en outre que dans le cas du requÃ©rant McBride, il est Ã©tabli qu'il a fait l'objet de brutalitÃ©s delib -rÃ©esde la part de policiers, comme il 1'a prÃ©tendu,et qu'au vu des circonstances ces brutalitÃ©s constituent une violation de l'article 3 . En dernier lieu, s'agissant des requÃ©rents Kell Y et Kearns, les requÃ©rants estiment qu'i1 a Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli,Ã¢ie lumi re des rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale, que le requÃ©ran t Kell a subi des traitements contraires Ã l'article 3 ; que eapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale concernant le requÃ©rant Kearns attestent clairement que celui-ci a subi des brutalitÃ©s et des prÃ©judices corporels pendant qu'il se trouvait en prison . Au vu des rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale et d'autres Ã©lÃ©mente de preuve, il est probable que chacun des requÃ©rants s'est vu administrer une drogueaprÃ©s son arrestation . En rÃ©sumÃ©, ils dÃ©clarent qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© battus et humiliÃ©s par des militaires et des policiers, lors de leur arrestation et au commissariat de police, et qu'on leur a administrÃ© une drogue sans leur consentement ; ils estiment que chacun d'entre eux a Ã©tÃ© victime de violations de l'article 3 d e
la Convention . Argumentation du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur reconnait que les requÃ©rants Donnell Bradley et Duffy ont subi des brutalitÃ©s et ont rprdes pre,7udices corporels Ã l'Ã©poque des faits ; toutefois, il conteste certains dÃ©tails de leur version des Ã©vÃ©nements .
- 131 -
Tout en reconnaissant que le requÃ©rant Carlin semble avoir Ã©tÃ© blessÃ© trÃ¨s lÃ©gÃ¨rement au bras alors qÃ»'Il se trouvait au commissariat de poSice"A", leGouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait valoir que les allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant relatives aux mauvais traitements qu'il prÃ©tend avoir subis dans ce commissariat ne cadrent pas avec les rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale et divers autres tÃ©moignages, et que sa blessure au bras s'explique trÃ©s probablement par le fait qu'i1 l'a reÃ§ue au moment oÃ¹, alore qu'il refusait de monter l'escalier, on l'y a forcÃ© en le poussant par le bras . Par ailleurs, il reconnait que M . Carlin a reÃ§u des Ã©raflures superficielles au bras et au coude et des contusions dans le dos au centre de dÃ©tention ; toutefois, les allÃ©gations de M . Carlin relatives Ã des brutalitÃ©set des mauvais traitements graves infligÃ©s pendant une pÃ©riode prolongÃ©e dans ce centre ne sont guÃ¨re compatibles avec la lÃ©gÃ¨retÃ© des prÃ©judices corporels constatÃ©e, ni avec d'autres Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve . Etant donnÃ© le caractÃ¨re mensonger et peu convaincant des dÃ©clarations de M . Carlin concernant letraitement qu'il aurait subi Ã "A", on ne peut qu'avoir des doutes quant au moment et aux circonstances des dommages qu'aurait Ã©prouv Ã© M . Carlin . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur reconnait que le requÃ©rant McBride s'est retrouvÃ© avec les yeux pochÃ©s et la lÃ¨vre supÃ©rieure tumÃ©fiÃ©e alors qu'i1 Ã©tait sous la garde de la police ; toutefois, le Gouvernement estime qu'Ã©tant donnÃ© leur caractÃ¨re bÃ©nin, ces prÃ©judices corporels ne reprÃ©senten t
pas des traitemen :s contraires Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . S'agissant des requÃ©rants Kelly et Kearns , l e Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur est d'avis que, lors de leur procÃ¨s , l'un et l'autre se sont rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©s Ã©tre des personnes peu dignes de foi et prÃªtes Ã mentir pour discrÃ©diter les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Les blessures constatÃ©es sur leur personne laissent penser qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© malmenÃ©s pendant leur arrestation et leur transfert au commissariat de police . Absolument rien ne permet d'Ã©tayer l'allÃ©gation selon laquelle une drogue aurait Ã©tÃ© administrÃ©e Ã M . Kelly alors qu'il se trouvait en prison et les allÃ©gations de M . Kearns dans ce sens sont fausses et contredites par lea avis d'experts . II . SUR LE POINT DE SAVOIR SI LES REQUERANTS ONT ETE D S RA E CONTRAIRE VICTIMES D'UNE PRATIQUE A ART Argumentation des requÃ©rant s Les requÃ©rants font rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã leurs premiÃ¨res observations au fond et prÃ©tendent qu'i1 a existÃ©, au moiris Ã partir du 9 aoÃ»t 1971, une pratique administrative systÃ©matique encourageant ou tolÃ©rant des traitements contraire s Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . Ils prÃ©tendent que les Ã©lÃ©ments nÃ©cessaires, soit la rÃ©pÃ©tition des actes et la tolÃ©rance officielle, ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©tablis sur deux plans ,
-
132 -
Ã savoir sur le plan gÃ©nÃ©ral par dÃ©s dÃ©c :arations et d'autres Ã©lÃ©nients de preuve, et sur un second plan, par les preuves relatives aux traitements qu'ils ont eux-inÃ©nies subis . Outre les moyens de fait dÃ©jÃ invoquÃ©s dans leur x soremiÃ¨ bvatons,lerquÃ©atsfÃ¨renau donnÃ©es chiffrÃ©es contenues dans diverses rÃ©ponses Ã des questions de parlementaires, rÃ©ponses donnant certains dÃ©taile sur les plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es contre des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© en Irlande du Nord . Il en ressort notamment que 3 .7 5 9 plaintes ont Ã©tÃ© enregistrÃ©es contre des iuembres du RUC entre la aate d'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la loi de i970 sur l ; 32 on apolice(IrnduNo)etlmisd'avr1975 t don Ã© lieu Ã des poursuites et 23 Ã des procÃ©dures disciplinaires . Au total, 10 agentc de police ont Ã©tÃ© reconnus coupables Ã l'issue de poursuites, dont 6 de brutalitÃ©s . Il ressort d'autres donnÃ©es que 798 actions ont Ã©tÃ© .engagÃ©es entre l e 9 aoÃ»t 1971 et le 30 septembre 1975 pour brutalitÃ©s infligÃ©e s par des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Onze affaires ont Ã©tÃ© jugÃ©es dont 9 aux torts des plaignants et 2 en leur faveur . 220 affaires ont Ã©tÃ© rÃ©glÃ©es et 517 sont encore pendantes . Dans les 222 affaires oÃ¹ les plaignants ont eu gain de cause, 420 .823,48 livres ont Ã©tÃ© versÃ©es Ã titre de rÃ©paration . Par ailleurs, il ressort de ces indications quedepuis l e 1er janvier 1971, 12 .123 plaintes au total ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©posÃ©es contre le RUC et les forces armÃ©es . Selon les requÃ©rants, il est clairement Ã©tabli, d'une que l'Irlande du Nord a connu en permanence une rÃ©pÃ©tition.part, d'actes contraires Ã l'article 3 et, d'autre part, que ni les poursuites pÃ©nales, ni les procÃ©dures disciplinaires ne'peuvent Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©es comme ayant eÃ» un effet dissuasif notab ;e . La tolÃ«rance manifestÃ©e Ã l'Ã©gard des actes en cuestion est illustrÃ©e dans les prÃ©sentes affaires, d'une part, par le fait que les supÃ©rieurs immÃ©diats des vÃ©ritables responsables n'on rÃ©pÃ©titio n trienfapouircesdnoumpÃ¨cherla de ces .actea grÃ ce Ã une surveillance plus efficace et, d'autre part, par le fait que les allÃ©gatio n s de mauvais traiteinents n'ont pas fait l'objet d'enquÃ©tessÃ©rieuses . Les Ã©preuves subies par les septs requÃ©rants dÃ©montrent l'existence de la pratique allÃ©guÃ©e . Les incidents se sont produits dans ~ des commissariats de police ou des postes militaires situÃ©s dans des rÃ©gions trÃ¨s Ã©loignÃ©es les unes des autree et, mis en regard les uns des autres, rÃ©vÃ¨lent que les forces de sÃ©curitÃ« ont le sentiment gÃ©nÃ©ral de pouvoir agir en toute impunitÃ© lorsqu'elles ont affaire 1 des individus soupGor .nÃ©s a'activitÃ©s terroristes . Les Ã©lÃ©ments de pre u ve vaguec, Ã©vasifa, et parfois controuvÃ©s, r"ult .ant Jes C.Ea :d~~~ :ages ureduiSe -,ar : tiouvernement dÃ©fendcur, indicuent aus,i l'ez :stence, aupr& s des Â°orces de sÃ©curitÃ©, d'une orbtique de dissimulation et de cromperie . Aucun des tÃ©moins du ,ou+ernement dÃ©fendeur n'a reconn' .i avoir assis:tÃ© cu particip5 S des Ã©,:Ã©r.c :nen :s susceptibles d'expliquer les prÃ©judices corporels constatÃ©s sur la personne des requÃ©rantc .
- 133 -
Il n'est pas contestÃ© que les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradle et Duff}' ont Ã©tÃ© sÃ©rieusement blessÃ©s pendant leu r d tention dans le poste militaire, et il est inconcevable que personne dans ce poste n'ait remarquÃ© leur 6tat . NÃ©anmoins, l'officier commandant le poste a dÃ©clarÃ© n'avoir eu connaissance d'aucun mauvais traitement et, lorsqu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ©s ultÃ©rieurement par l'officier enquÃ©teur, aucun de ses soldats n'a, semble-t-il, reconnu avoir participÃ© ou assistÃ© Ã des voies de fait . A ce sujet, les requÃ©rants se rÃ©fÃ¨rent aux tÃ©moignages indiquant que les trois intÃ©ressÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© vus par de nombreux soldats pendant leur dÃ©tention dans le poste militaire, ainsi que par un certain nombre d'agents de police qui ont recueilli ultÃ©rieurement leurs dÃ«clarations . Ils se rÃ©fÃ¨rent aussi aux dÃ©clarations faites par les requÃ©rants eux-mÃ©mes et qui montrent qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© vus par un ou plusieum officiers de l'armÃ©e pendant qu'ils se trouvaient dans le poste . Le fait que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur n'a avancÃ© aucune justification pour expliquer le silence absolu de ceux qui Ã©taient prÃ©sents Ã l'Ã©poque et le fait qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© engagÃ© de poursuites disciplinaires sont la preuve que le 'ouvernement tolÃ¨re dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment et encourag e de facto une pratique administrative consistant Ã torturer et Ã maltraiter les individus soupÃ§onnÃ©s d'activitÃ©s terroristes . Les requÃ©rants font aussi observer, en ce qui~concern e le requÃ©rant McBride , qu'aucun agent de police prÃ©sent au moment oÃ¹ il Ã©tait detenu au commissariat de police n'a reconnu avoir constatÃ© des prÃ©judices corporels . Bien que les militaires et les agents de police soient thÃ©oriquement tenus de signaler tout cas de mauvais traitements, il est clair que ce devoi r a Ã©tÃ© mÃ©connu en pratique . L'absence de surveillance et l'indiffÃ©rence des officiers supâ¬rieurs ont aussi contribuÃ© Ã la continuation de mauvais traitements systÃ©matiques contre les individus suspects . S'agissant de M . Carlin, les requÃ©rants laissent entendre qu'il est trÃ¨s difficile de savoir jour par jour qui commandait le centre de dÃ©tention de la police et son personnel et que ceci ne tÃ©moigne guÃ¨re en faveur d'un contrSle adÃ©quat des officiers supÃ©rieurs sur les activitÃ©s d'un centre d'interrogatoire aussi important . Le sergent de garde Ã l'Ã©poque a dÃ©clarÃ© ne pas savoir qui Ã©tait prÃ©sent ; en outre, les activitÃ©s des agents de la "Section spÃ©ciale" ne paraissen t pas soumises Ã un contrÃ´le suffisant . Ils laissent entendre, en outre,que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve rÃ©unis dans les cas de MM . Kearns et K e, lly rÃ©vÃ¨lent que les agents de la "Section spÃ©ci a`-le se situent en dehors de la hiÃ©rarchie normale dans les commissariats de police . Les requÃ©rants dÃ©clarent que le dÃ©p6t d'une plaint e ne paraissait pas prÃ©occuper beaucoup les forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, Ã quelque niveau que ce fÃ»t . MÃªme lorsque les enquÃªteurs ont conclu que certains prÃ©judices corporels devaient avoir Ã©tÃ© subis par des suspects pendant leur dÃ©tention, rien ne perme t
- 134 -
de dire que des enquÃªtes disciplinaires ou d'autres mesures aient Ã©tÃ© prises par les officiers .supÃ©rieurs compÃ©tents . La procÃ©dure des enquÃ©tesconcernant les plaintes dirigÃ©es contre la police ou les forces armÃ©es est totalement inadÃ©quate, ainsi que le dÃ©montrent les investigations rÃ©alisÃ©es par les trois enquÃ©teurs qui ont tÃ©moignÃ© . La conclusion Ã laquelle est parvenu l'agent chargÃ© d'enquÃ©ter sur les plaintes de MM . Kelly et Kearns, Ã savoir qu'i1 n'avait trouvÃ© "aucune preuve" de mauvais traitements, est manifestement erronÃ©e, si l'on considÃ¨re les rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale ; par ailleurs, la maniÃ¨re dont il a examinÃ© la question des drogues a aussi laissÃ© Ã dÃ©sirer . L'agent chargÃ© d'enquÃªter sur la plainte de M . McBride a recommandÃ© de classer l'affaire aprÃ¨s que ce requÃ©rant eut reconnu Ã©tre coupable de certaines infractions sans rÃ©itÃ©rer ses allÃ©gations . Il a laissÃ© entendre que le requÃ©rant s'Ã©tait peut-Ãªtre blessÃ© en trÃ©buchant contre une porte, mais il a refusÃ© de donner un avis sur le point de savoir s'il Ã©tait raisonnable de conclure que ces blessures avaient Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©es par des policiers . D'aprÃ¨s la dÃ©position de l'enquÃªteur lui-mÃ©me, l'enquÃªte effectuÃ©e sur les allÃ©gations de M . Carlin parait avoir Ã©tÃ© incomplÃ¨te et partiale . Cet-enquÃ©teur n'a consultÃ© aucun registre pour rec ;;ercher quels policiers ou quels militaires se trouvaient au centre de dÃ©tention, mais il s'en est remis aux renseignements donnÃ©s par des policiers . Il ne s'est pas entretenu avec l'un des policiers qui avait Ã©t Ã© en contact avec M . Carlin, et il n'a pas non plus recueilli les dÃ©clarations de ce policier ; il n'a pas examinÃ© le centre et a admis sans vÃ©rification le rÃ©cit dÃ©nuÃ© de fondement d'un policier qui aurait prÃ©tendu avoir dÃ©couvert une agrafe dans la cellule de M . Carlin . S'il a reconnu de mauvaise grÃ©c e que M . Carlin avait eu le dos contusionnÃ© pendant qu'il se trouvait au centre, il n'a pas recommandÃ© de prendre d'autres mesures . MÃ©me aprÃ¨s avoir pris connaissance des dÃ©clarations Ã©crites soumises par M . Carlin Ã la Commission, il a conclu qu'il n'y avait pas lieu de rÃ©examiner les conclusions auxquelles il Ã©tait parvenu . Ces enquÃªtes rÃ©vÃ¨lent une partialitÃ©contre les plaignants et un prÃ©jugÃ© en faveur de toute explication, aussi invraisemblable soit-elle, qui disculpe les forces de sÃ©curitÃ« . Les requÃ©rants admettent que le refus des plaignants de coopÃ©rera probablement freinÃ© le bon dÃ©roulement des enquÃªtes, mais ce refus de coopÃ©rer Ã©tait motivÃ© par un scepticisme Ã l'Ã©gard de l'impartialitÃ© des enquÃªtes, bien comprÃ©hensible Ã©tant donnÃ© les circonstances . Les requÃ©rants font valoir par ailleurs que la complÃ¨te sÃ©paration entre les procÃ©dures d'enquÃ©te de l'armÃ©e et de la police,telle qu'elle apparait dans le cas des enquÃ©tes . . ef.fectuÃ©es sur les affaires Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy, Kearns et Kelly, a aussi contribuÃ© Ã expliquer les carences du systÃ¨m e et a pu favoriser une collusion chez les militaires, qui n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ©s par la police .
- 135 -
L'un des moyens d'assurer la cessation des mauvais traitements est de poursuivre les responsables . Toutefois , vu la nature des investigations, l'absence de poursuites n'est pas surprenant . S'il est impossible, dans certains cas, d'identifier l'agresseur de faÃ§on assez prÃ©cise pour pouvoir dÃ©clencher des poursuites pÃ©nales, il faut se demander si les requÃ©rants ont pu disposer normalement des moyens qui leur auraient permis d'identifier les policiers et les militaires impliquÃ©s . En outre, mÃªme l'enquÃªteur le plus dÃ©terminÃ© peut Ã©chouer du fait de l'absence de procÃ¨s-verbaux, de l'invention d'histoires, ou de la collusion entre les militaires ou les policiers impliquÃ©s . Toutefois, les difficultÃ©s sont encore plus grandes si l'enquÃ©te est effectuÃ©e de mauvaise grÃ¢ce et ne va pas au fond des choses . Vu le petit nombre de poursuites, comparÃ© au nombre de plaintes, on ne peut pas penser que les poursuites ont constituÃ© un moyen de dissuasion efficace contre la continuation des mauvais traitements infligÃ©s aux suspects . MÃªme dans les cas od des poursuites ne sont pas engagÃ©es, des procÃ©dures disciplinaires devraient, selon les requÃ©rants, permettre de mettre un frein aux comportements rÃ©prÃ©hensibles . Toutefois, les poursuites disciplinaires possibles n'ont guÃ¨re paru intÃ©resser les enquÃ©teurs, non plus que des question s aussi importantes que la surveillance effective du traitement rÃ©servÃ© aux dÃ©tenus . Aucune action disciplinaire n'a Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©e d l'occasion des sept prÃ©sentes affaires . En rÃ©sumÃ©, les requÃ©rants estiment que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve produits dans les sept cas dÃ©montrent l'existence d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3, et ce pour les raisons suivantes : les enquÃªtes ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©fectueuses et partiales ; le traitement rÃ©servÃ© aux suspects a fait l'objet d'une surveillance totalement insuffisante ; mÃªme dans les cas flagrants de Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, rien ne montre qu'aucun militaire ou poiicier se soit posÃ© la moindre question sur la maniÃ¨re dont ces dÃ©tenus avaient Ã©tÃ© maltraitÃ©s le fait que les officiers supÃ©rieurs de l'armÃ©e et du RUC tolÃ¨rent les brutalitÃ©s est illustrÃ©, d'une part, par le fait que l'officier commandant l'Ã©quipe qui a enquÃ©tÃ© sur l'explosion a assistÃ© Ã la premiÃ¨re sÃ©rie de brutalitÃ©s infligÃ©es Ã M . McBride et, d'autre part,-par les allÃ©gations de Bradley et de Duffy selon lesquelles un officier de l'armÃ©e a paru â¬tre au courant des sÃ©vices qui leur avaient Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©s ; enfin, le fait que des poursuites pÃ©nales ou disciplinaires n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©es est la preuve que ces poursuites ne pouvaient pas servir, et ne servaient pas, de moyen de dissuasion efficace . Les requÃ©rants se tournent vers la thÃ¨se du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur selon _aouelle, avant qu'un 3tat ne puisse Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ© re~ponsable d'une pratique administrative, il est nÃ©cessaire d'apoorter la preuve que cette pratique est tolÃ©rÃ©e au niveac de l'Etat proprement dit . Ils constatent que cette thÃ¨se ne s'appuie sur aucune autoritÃ© et que, conformÃ©ment Ã
- 136 -
la jurisprudence antÃ©rieure de la Commissicn, il leur est seulement nÃ©cessaire de montrer, d!une part, que les mauvais traitements sont tolÃ©rÃ©s, en ce sens que les supÃ©rieurs des individus immÃ©diatement responsables ne font pas diligence pour punir ces derniers ou empÃªcher la rÃ©pÃ©tition de ces actes et, d'autre part, que les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures manifestent de l'indiffÃ©rence en refusant d'ouvrir des enqu=tes sÃ©rieuses ou en ne prenant pas de mesures efficaces pour assurer la cessation de la pratique . 5e rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã leurs premiÃ¨res observations, 119 requÃ©rants soulignent qu'il ne leur incombe pas de prouver que la pratique allÃ©guÃ©e a Ã©tÃ© encouragÃ©e ou chaudement approuvÃ©e par les plus hautes autoritÃ©s . T-ls admettent qu'aux Ã©chelons les plus Ã©levÃ«s de l'Etat, et peut-Ã©tre aussi Ã l'Ã©chelon des autoritÃ©s militaires et de police les plus Ã©levÃ©es, on ne souhaite peut-Ã©tre pas que les suspects soient maltraitÃ©s . Toutefois, il est constant que des mauvais traitements sont infligÃ©s et qu'Ã¢ l'Ã©chelon intermÃ©diaire de la hiÃ©rarchie il doit y avoir des personnes qui ont connaissance de cette pratique et qui la tolÃ¨rent . Par ailleurs, conformÃ©ment 1 la jurisprudence de la Commission, la "tolÃ©rance officielle" peut aussi Ã©tre prouvÃ©e par l'indif :'Ã©rence des autoritÃ©s gouvernementales Ã l'Ã©gard des allÃ©gationsrÃ©itÃ©rÃ©es de torture et, selon eux, cette indiffÃ©rence a Ã©tÃ© flagrant e Ã l'Ã©poque des faits . La pratique administrative dont les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent avoir Ã©tÃ© victimes ne se limiterait pas, cortrairement Ã c e que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a prÃ©tendu, Ã de mauvais traitements infligÃ©s en cours d'interrogatoire . Cette pratique se traduirait aussi par de mauvais traitements infligÃ©s Ã d'autres fins, par exemple Ã titre de chÃ¢timent sommaire . Argumentation du G o uvernement dÃ©fendeu r Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur rappelle " argumentation qu'il a dzjÃ© dÃ©veloppÃ©e, Ã savoir que les requÃ©rants ne sont pas recevables Ã soulever dans leurs requÃ©tes la question de l'existence d'une pratique administrative ; il n'envisage donc pas de faire des observations au sujet des allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements concernant d'autres personnes que les requÃ©rants . Toutefois, pour le cas od la Commission souhaiterait se pencher sur la question de savoir s'il existe ou non des preuves de l'existence d'une quelconque pratique administrative ayant affectÃ© les requÃ©rants, il formulera certaines observations . En premier lieu, il estime qâ¢~e '_ors ;u'est allÃ©guÃ©e l'exietence d'une pratique administrative dont l'Etat doit Ã©tre tenu pour responsable, il est nÃ©cessaire de Ã§rouver qu'une ?ratique administrative d'illÃ©galitÃ©s ou de 'iiolations de la Convention est autorisÃ©e ou tolÃ©rÃ©e aâ¢~ nice2u de l'Eta t
-
:'. 7
-
proprement dic, c'est-Ã -dire Ã l'Ã©chelon de l'ExÃ©cutif ou d'un service de l'EaÃ©cutif spÃ©cialement chargÃ© par celui-ci d'ordonner ou d'encourager le recours Ã ladite pratique . Cette preuve n'a pas Ã©tÃ© rapportÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce et les Ã©lÃ©ments recherchÃ©s et recueillis par les DÃ©lÃ©guÃ©s de la Commission ne se rapportent pas Ã des questions ayant quelque rapport avec les problÃ¨mes susceptibles de se poser Ã ce niveau . En second lieu, pour le cas o Ã¹ la Commission voudrait examiner la question de l'existence d'une pratique administrative Ã un autre niveau, les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve produits n'ont pas rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© l'existence d'une quelconque pratique administrative de mauvais traitements . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã divers passages de la requÃªte et de s mÃ©moires des requÃ©rants et pense que ce que ces derniers cherchent Ã Ã©tablir c'est l'existence d'une pratique administrative de mauvais traitements avant et pendant les interrogatoires, et dont le but serait d'obtenir des aveux ou des renseignements . Toutefois, les tÃ©moignages ont permis d'Ã©tablir que dans la mesure od les requÃ©rants ont reÃ§u des blessures, celles-c i n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© la consÃ©quence d'une telle pratique . A cet Ã©gard, il est clair que les brutalitÃ©s exercÃ©es sur les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© tolÃ©rÃ©es par les supÃ©rieurs de ceux qui s'y sont livrÃ©s, Ã©tant donnÃ© que la police a ouvert immÃ©diatement une enquÃ©te et que trois des personnes accusÃ©es par les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© poursuivies . Par ailleurs, chacun des requÃ©rants a reÃ§u une indemnitÃ© substantielle qu'il a dÃ©clarÃ© accepter comme faisant pleinement droit Ã la prÃ©tention qu'il avait fait valoir dans son action civile . En outre, les dÃ©clarations de MM . Bradley et Duffy, selon lesquelles un policier s'est entretenu avec eux dans le poste, sont sujettes Ã caution pour un certain nombre de raisons et ne doivent pas Ãªtre acceptÃ©es . Le Gouvernement attire l'attention sur la dÃ©position de l'officier commandant le poste, selon laquelle celui-ci n'Ã©tait pas au courant de ce qui se passait . S'agissant des observation s des requÃ©rants, selon lesquelles aucune action disciplinaire n'a Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©e, le Gouvernement fait observer que les trois personnes accusÃ©es ont en rÃ©alitÃ© fait l'objet de poursuites pÃ©nales . Or, un des principes fondamentaux de tous les systÃ¨mes de droit veut que lorsque des personnes ont Ã©tÃ© poursuivies Ã raison d'une accusation pÃ©nale, puis acquittÃ©es, il ne convient pas qu'elles soient Ã nouveau accusÃ©es des mÃªmes faits devant une autre juridiction . En tout Ã©tat de cause, il est Ã©tabli que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une pratique administrative . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur attire une nouvelle fois l'attention sur l'inexactitude probable de la dÃ©position de M . Carlin concernant les mauvais traitements qu'il affirme avoir eubis dans le centre de dÃ©tention . Toutefois, si M . Carlin a subi de mauvais traitements dans ce centre, la dÃ©position d e
- 138 -
l'officier responsable de l'ensemble du centre Ã©tablit clairement ou'il n'y a pas e u tolÃ©rance officielle . Il attire l'attention, d'une part, sur les terrn es des directives permanentes applicables en l'espÃ¨ce, d'autre F art, sur les dÃ©clarations dudit officier concernant son systÃ¨me de visited d'inspection et, enfin, sur les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve de l'existence d'examens mÃ©dicaux pratiquÃ©s Ã l'entrÃ©e et Ã la sortie, systÃ¨me qui, selon le Gouvernement, vise Ã rÃ©duire les risques des mauvais traitements . Le fait qu'il y a pu avoir une faille dans le systÃ¨me ne constitue pas une pratique administrative, et les Ã© lÃ©ments de preuve rÃ©unis Ã© tablissent qu'il n'y a pas eu de pratique administrative dans le centre de dÃ©tention .Les tÃ©moignages ont permis d'Ã©tablir queM . McBride a admis que c'est Ã la suite d'interrogatoires policiers patients et corrects qu'il avait reconnu avoir participÃ© aux actes au sujet desquels il Ã©tait interrogÃ© . Les prÃ©judices corporels mineurs qu'il a s u bis n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©s e n vue de l'obl?ger Ã passer aux ave u x, mais il est possible qu'un policier ait perdu un instant son calme Ã la pensÃ©e du crime dans lequel M . McEride Ã©tait impliquÃ© . M . McBride a reÃ§u une indemnitÃ© en rÃ¨glement des prÃ©tentions qu'il a fait valoir .
Il n'a donc pas Ã©tÃ© victime de la pratique administrative allÃ©guÃ©e par les requÃ©rants . S'agissant des requÃ©rants Kelly et Kearns, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur dÃ©clare qu'i1 n'est gu ~ re surprenant que, dans les circonstances de leur arrestation, ils aient Ã©t . Mais il est clair que les prÃ©judice s Ã©quelpcontsiÃ© corporels mineurs qu'ils ont Ã©prouvÃ©s ne sont pas la consÃ©quence d'une pratique administrative, surtout en raison du fait qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© apprÃ©hendÃ©s dans des circonstances dÃ©montrant leur culpabilitÃ© et qu'ii n'Ã©tait donc pas nÃ©cessaire d'obtenir des aveux pour Ã©tablir celle-ci . Une autre considÃ©ration qui va Ã l'encontre de l'existence ; ;'une pratique administrative rÃ©side, s eicr. le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, dans le fait que iee plaintes des requÃ©rants ont fait l'objet d'er.quÃ©tes approfondies et minutieuses de la part de policiers, qui ont consacrÃ© de nombreuses heures Ã ces enquÃªtes, Ã un moment oÃ¹ la police Ã©tait trÃ¨s occupÃ©e Ã combattre le terrorisme . On peut rele v er, d'une part, que seuls MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy ont coopÃ©rÃ© . Jn soulii;nera, d'autre part, les poursuites qui en vont rÃ©sultÃ©es dans leur cas, ai n si que l .s conclusions des ?olicie .^'+ enarÃ¿Ã©s d'enquÃ©ter sur .es autres cas . il es t
dÃ©razsoncahle ~t de io part de MM . Kearns, F:e :'_y Carlin et !?cPÂ° de d'a~ :oir refrsÃ© de ccepÃ©rer avec lec pei'_Ã®iers ?nquÃ©teurs p~.ar :ri*.iquar ens~ . :te la naniÃ¨re r1enc tcz Eciic-ers ont menÃ© leure _nÂ«jestigatioi,s et _ . . . .t parvenus +_eur s
conclusions .
- 139 -
En ce qui concerne la critique dÃ©taillÃ©e des enquÃ©tes par les reqâ¢~Ã©rants, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur relÃ¨ve que la conclusion de l'enquÃ©teur, selon laquelle celui-ci n'a trouvÃ© aucune preuve qu'un membre quelconque des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© alt brutalisÃ© MM . Kelly et Kearns, est fondÃ©e sur le s rÃ©sultats des expertises mÃ©dicales du mÃ©decin de l'Ã©tablissement pÃ©nitentiaire . S'agissant des critiques des requÃ«rants concernant la maniÃ¨re dont l'enquÃ©teur a traitÃ© la question des drogues, celui-ci n'a reÃ§u aucune aide de la part d e MM . Kelly et %earns et a demandÃ© des renseignements au laboratoire de oolice scientifique de Belfast . Le policier qui a enquÃ©tÃ© sur la plainte de M . McBride a conclu que celui-ci avait reÃ§u des nÃ©matomes aux yeux pendant sa pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention dans les locaux de la police . Ce policier a seulement indiquÃ©, non pas dans son rapport, mais au cours de son contreinterrogatoire par l'avocat du plaignant, qu'il Ã©tait possible que celui-ci ait trÃ©buchÃ© contre une porte . Quant Ã l'enquÃ¨te sur la plainte de M . Carlin, celle-ci a Ã©tÃ© gÃ©nÃ©e du fait que l'enquÃ©teur, au vu de la plainte qu'il avait reÃ§ue, ne savait pas quels Ã©taient les policiers par lesquels M . Carlin prÃ©tendait avoir Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ© . Le 6 .uvernement dÃ©fendeur explique encore que les autoritÃ©s policiÃ¨res se sont prÃ©occupÃ©es non seulemept d'enquÃªter sur les ellÃ©ga :ions de mauvais traitements, mais aussi d'amÃ©lio-er le systÃ¨me de surveillance des personnes dÃ©tenues . A cet Ã©gard, '_1 attire l'attention sur les dÃ©positions de deux tÃ©moins appartenant Ã la police, qui ont fait Ã©tat, d'une part, de la crÃ©ation d'un registre oÃ¹ sont notÃ©s de maniÃ¨re dÃ©taillÃ©e les mouvements de chaque dÃ©tenu Ã l'intÃ©rieur des commissariats de police ains! que les contacts entre les dÃ©tenus et les policiers et, d'autre part, de l'institution d'un examen mÃ©dical des dÃ©tenus Ã l'arrivÃ©e dans les commissariats de police et @ leur dÃ©part . Il est aussi fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã des dÃ©clarations dÃ©crivant les amÃ©liorations apportÃ©es Ã la surveillance des centres de dÃ©tention de la police . En dernier lieu, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur rappelle que les reqaÃ©rants disposaient de voies de recours internes efficaces et suffisantes dans ce contexte .
III .
QUANT AUX. QUESTIONS RELEVANT DE L'AATICLE 26 , F.2
~~ . . . n S LES CONSEQUENCES U '9A .1 .
Prcâ¢.mertation
N A N DES
des requÃ©rant s
12ns _eGr mÃ©moire final, les requÃ©rants ont fait obsercer ._ cuestions qui se posent sur le terrain de l'artS_ie s~nc dÃ©finies dans la dÃ©cision sur ia recevabilitÃ© Cans laque : :e :e Commission a joint au fond " . . . toute question reiati' e aux voies de recours qui auraient d:. Ã©tre Ã©puisÃ©es par cFâ¢a^ue requÃ©rant, en tarit que ' ictime allÃ©guÃ© e
140 -
d'actes particuliers, distincts d'une pratique administrative, violant l'article 3 ." Ils font observer que le rapport entre la question des voies de recours internes et l'existence d'une pratique administrative a dÃ©jS Ã©tÃ© traitÃ© en dÃ©tail dans les conclusions sur la recevabilitÃ© ainsi que dans la dÃ©cisio n de la Commission . Lorsque la preuve est rapportÃ©e de l'existence d'actes spÃ©cifiques contraires Ã l'article 3 et distincts d'une pratique administrative, la Commission a jugÃ© que la possibilitÃ© d'une indemnisation peut constituer un recours efficace, au sens des articles 13 et 26 . Toutefois, le droit Ã un recours efficace, garanti par l'article 13, englob e non seulement la possibilitÃ© thÃ©orique d'obtenir une indemnitÃ©, mais aussi des droits complÃ©mentaires nÃ©cessaires pour rendre efficace en pratique le droit d rÃ©paration . Ainsi, un individu devrait pouvoir Ã©tre sÃ»r que sa plaintÃ© fera l'objet d'une enquÃªte impartiale, et qu'i1 ne sera pas gÃ©nÃ© ou tracassÃ© par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© contre lesquelles il a dÃ©posÃ© une plainte . Il devrait pouvoir Ã©tre sÃ»r que sa demande ne demeurera pa s ansef tparsuited'unmanqued copÃ©rationdelaprtde s forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, de la suppression de preuves ou d'une collusion visant Ã nier qu'il ait subi des mauvais traitements . Les requÃ©rants rÃ©itÃ¨rent, d'une part, leurs allÃ©gation s dÃ©jÃ formulÃ©es au sujet de tracasseries ou de manoeuvres d'intimidation et, d'autre part, renvoient aux preuves qui ont . Ã©tÃ© produites que des reprÃ©sailles ont Ã©tÃ© exercÃ©es lorsque des plaintes ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©posÃ©es contre les forces de sÃ©curit Ã© et que la minoritÃ© catholique redoutait ces reprÃ©sailles . Le fait que, dans son ensemble, la communautÃ© catholique n'avait pas confiance dans les voies de recours lÃ©gales est Ã©galement pertinent Ã cet Ã©gard .
I1s font valoir, par ailleurs, que la plupart des indemnitÃ©s versÃ©es en Irlande du Nord ne l'ont pas Ã©tÃ© grÃ¢ce au systÃ¨me lÃ©gal d' .indemnisation en vigueur, mais en dÃ©pi t de ce systSme, sous la forme extra-lÃ©gale d'indemnitÃ©s versÃ©es aux plaignants Ã titre gracieux . Une responsabilitÃ© est rarement, voire jamais, admise ; et les demandes en rÃ©paration n'atteignent gÃ©nÃ©ralement pae le stade judiciaire . Par le moyen de dÃ©dommagements gracieux, le Gouvernement tente de faire en sorte que les affaires importantes de mauvais traitements ne fassent l'objet d'aucune enquÃ©te ; d'autre part, que les sommes ainsi versÃ©es sont purement et simplement considÃ©rÃ©es comm e le coÃ»t nÃ©cessaire des mesures appliquÃ©es par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur en Irlande du Nord . Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã la dÃ©cision de la Commission sur la requÃªte nÂ° 299 / 57 (GrÃ¨ce contre le Royaume-Uni, Annuaire Vol . II, p . 187), les requÃ©rants font observer qu'il ressort clairement de la jurisprudence de la Commission qu e
les recours accordÃ©s uniquement Ã titre gracieux ou laissÃ©s Ã la discrÃ©tion dupouvoir exÃ©cutif ne constituent pas des recours efficaces et suffisants devant Ãªtre exercÃ©s conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 . Avec la procÃ©dure d'indemnisation existante ,
- 141 -
les plaignants doivent se contenter d'indemnitÃ©s Ã titre gracieux, car un recours devant les tribunaux peut trÃ¨s bien Ã©tre rendu inopÃ©rant par le prÃ©jugÃ© inhÃ©rent au rÃ©gime en faveur des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Ces indemnitÃ©s ne peuvent pas â¬tre considÃ©rÃ©es comme des rÃ©parations efficaces et suffisantes, et les requÃ©rants doivent donc Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comm e
dispensÃ©s de satisfaire Ã la rÃ¨gle normale de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . l4Ã©me si l'indemnisation devait Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une rÃ©paration suffisante et efficace dans les cas oÃ elle est accordÃ©e, de tels rÃ¨glements n'ont aucune incidence sur les autres requÃ©rants . Il n'empÃ©che que les plaignants d'Irlande du Nord ont peur de poursuivre les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© et, dans le cas des requÃ©rants qui n'ont pas obtenu un rÃ¨glement, ils maintiennent leur position initiale, Ã savoir que les recours sont insuffisants et inefficaces . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©cisent que quoi qu'il en soit ils n'ont pas rÃ©clamÃ© d'indemnitÃ©s dans le cadre de la satisfaction qu'ils dÃ©sirent obtenir et que leur requÃ©te tendant Ã obtenir une satisfaction sous forme de constatation de droit est toujours pendante devant la Commission . Ils notent enfin que la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© recevable l'allÃ©gation selon laquelle ils ont Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . DÃ¨s lors, toute dÃ©cision qui pourrait Ã©tre prise sur d'autres questions relevant de l'article 26 ne saurait avoir d'incidence sur l'examen des prÃ©sentes requÃ©tes par la Commission, dans l a mesure oÃ¹ elles se rapportent Ã l'existence d'une pratiqu . eadminstrv A l'audience, les requÃ©rants ont dÃ©veloppÃ© leur . argumentation l~t soutenu que la question des voies de recours internes, qui a Ã©tÃ© jointe au fond, est forcÃ©ment liÃ©e Ã la question de l'existence d'une pratique administrative . La question de l'efficacitÃ© ou du caractÃ¨re suffisant des voies de recours i~ternes n'a besoin d'Ãªtre examinÃ©e par la Commission que si celle-ci constate que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une pratique administrative, ms :s de violations spÃ©cifiques de l'article 3 . Lorsqu'un individu est victime d'une pratique administrative, il n'a pas besoin d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours, car celles-ci seront forcÃ©ment insuffisantes . Lorsqu'il existe une pratique administrative, il ne sert Ã rien de dire qu'on peut obtenir une indemnitÃ© puisque le systÃ¨me d'indemnisation et le mÃ©canisme judiciaire normal ne permettent pas d'empÃ©cher le comportement inerimin . . 7ne pratique administrative, qu'elle soit localisÃ©e ou largement rÃ©pandue, a pour effet de rendre inefficaces et insuff'sants les recours destinÃ©s Ã protÃ©ger les droits garantis par l'article 3 . Un Etat ne devrait pas pouvoir m-.nnayer le droit de torturer ou d'infliger des traitements contraires Ã l'article 3 . Dans le cadre de la Convention, l'article 3 a un statut particulier et ne saurai t
- 142 -
subir des dÃ©rogations ; lorsqu'il existe une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3, un Couvernement ne peut pas prÃ©tendre qu'il satisfait aux dispositions de cet article en se bornant Ã dÃ©montrer qu'il dispose d'un systÃ©me lÃ©gal d'indemnisation . L'existence d'une pratique administrative dÃ©montre en elle-mÃ©me de faÃ§on concluante que le simple versement d'une indemnitÃ© ne constitue pas une rÃ©paration efficace ou suffisante et qu'i1 est incapable de constituer une telle rÃ©paration . Il faut quelque chose de plus, permettant de garantir que la pratique ne se rÃ©pÃ©tera pas . Il peut s'agir d'une action disciplinaire de caractÃ¨re administratif, d'une meilleure surveillance, ou de la poursuite pÃ©nale du tortionnaire . Si de telles mesures viennent s'ajouter au versement d'une indemnitÃ©, les requÃ©rants admettent qu'on se trouverait alors en prÃ©sence d'un recours efficace et suffisant, mais il n'y aurait plus, alors, de pratique administrative car l'Ã©lÃ©ment de tolÃ©rance officielle ferait dÃ©faut . L'existence d'une pratique administrative est incompatible avec l'existence de recours suffisants, et inversement . S'il n'y avait que des cas isolÃ©s de mauvais traitements, les requÃ©rants admettraient, comme le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r l'a soutenu, que l'Etat reprÃ©sente la premiÃ¨re ligne de dÃ©fense et qu'une indemnitÃ© constitue un recours suffisant et efficace . Toutefois, se rÃ©fÃ©rant aux donnÃ©es chiffrÃ©es qu'ils ont produits au sujet des plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es contre les forces de sÃ©curit Ã©
et des actions engagÃ©es Ã la suite de ces plaintes, ils estiment que telle n'a pas Ã©tÃ© la situation en Irlande du Nord . S'agissant de la question des voies de recours internes, qui a Ã©tÃ© jointe au fond, les requÃ©rants dÃ©veloppent leur argumentation en faisant valoir que les indemnitÃ©s versÃ©es en rÃ¨glement des actions intentÃ©es devant des tribunaux constituent des paiements gracieux et ne constituent pas l'aboutissement de recours efficaces ou suffisants . En pratique, l'existence du droit de rÃ©clamer des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts garantit le versement d'une indemnitÃ© pÃ©cuniaire, maia non l'examen par un tribunal des agissements incriminÃ©s . Ils font observer que le rÃ©glement intervenu dans 1'affaire McBride ne comporte aucune reconnaissance de responsabilitÃ© et ils affirment que telle est la pratique courante . Etant donnÃ© la nature des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuves produits par la police, il aurait Ã©tÃ© difficile au requÃ©rant de plaider son dossier devant le tribunal . ; c'est dans ce contexte que l'acceptation d'une indemnitÃ© par le requÃ©rant doit Ãªtre envisagÃ«e . Il est vrai que cette considÃ©ration s'applique moins bien dan s le cas des requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, mais dans ces cas les individus poursuivis ont Ã©tÃ© acquittÃ©s . Si ces acquittements ne vouaient pas nÃ©cessairement une action civile Ã l'Ã©chec, ils n'en revÃ©taient pas moins une certaine importance pour cette action ; ceci Ã©tant, il aurait Ã©tÃ© plus facile pour ces requÃ©rants de plaider leur cause si les accusÃ©s avaient Ã©tÃ© reconnus coupables . Les requÃ©rants admettent qu'ils auraient pu saisir les tribunaux, encore que selon leurs dires cette procÃ«dure aurait pu prendre environ deux ans .
- 143 -
Les requÃ©rants font valoir, par ailleurs, que rien dans la jurisprudence de la Commission n'empÃ©che les requÃ©rants de solliciter une rÃ©paration de caractÃ¨re dÃ©claratoire au lieu d'une rÃ©paration pÃ©cuniaire . Ils entendent par 1$ une dÃ©claration affirmant que chacun d'eux a Ã©tÃ© victime de violations de l'article 3 relevant d'une pratique administrative . Ils espÃ¨rent qu'une telle dÃ©claration conduirait Ã l'adoptio n de mesures propres Ã empÃ©cher la continuation de cette pratique . Une dÃ©claration pourrait d'ailleurs aussi Ã©tre faite dans des cas particuliers, en l'absence d'une pratique .
B . Argumentation du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeu r Dans son mÃ©moire final , le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a rappelÃ© et maintenu son argumentation antÃ©rieure, Ã savoir que lorsqu'une requÃ©te est fondÃ©e sur l'article 25 de la Convention, il est nÃ©cessaire que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes qui lui Ã©taient ouvertes, et que la question de l'existence allÃ©guÃ©e d'une pratique administrative n'est pertinente que pour Ã©tablir si ces recours Ã©taient efficaces . Il rappelle que dans I'Affaire grecque (Rapport de la Commission, Vol . II, Sre Partie, p . 12), la Commission a fait observer que la "notion / de pratique administrative7 est Ã©troitement liÃ©e au principe de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes" . Une indemnitÃ©, comme les requÃ©rants l'on reconnu, constitue l'aboutissement d'un recours interne au sens des articles 13 et 26 . Dans les cas oÃ¹ une indemnitÃ© est versÃ©e, il est clair que ce recours existe . Il ne s'agit pas de "la possibilitÃ© thÃ©orique d'une indemnisation" comme le prÃ©tendent les requÃ©rants, mais de versements effectivement faits et acceptÃ©s come faisant pleinement droit aux prÃ©tentions formulÃ©es par eux .
5'agissant de la thÃ¨se des requÃ©rants selon laquelle les versements effectuÃ©s constituent des paiements gracieux en dehors de toute obligation lÃ©gale, .le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fai t valoir que la situation est ici diffÃ©rente de celle de la seconde Affaire de Chypre, qui a Ã©tÃ© Ã©voquÃ©e par les requÃ©rants .
En Irlande du Nord, une action peut Ãªtre intentÃ©e contre la Couronne ou le Commissaire principal mÃªme en l'absence d'un coupable identifiable, alors que dans la seconde Affaire de Chypre le seul recours ouvert aux plaignants en pareille situation consistait Ã solliciter une indemnisation gracieuse . Les versements effectuÃ©s aux requÃ©rants dans le cadre des rÃ¨glements intervenus ne sauraient Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©s comme des paiement s Ã titre gracieux . Quant 3 l'allÃ©gation des requÃ©rants selon laquelle il Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire pour eux de parvenir Ã un rÃ¨glement de leur affaire plutÃ´t que de poursuivre la procÃ©dure en raison d'un prÃ©jugÃ© en faveur des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© et de la crainte de se voir exposÃ©sÃ des tracasseries, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur affirm e
- 144 -
qu'aucune preuve n'a Ã©tÃ© apportÃ©e de l'existence d'un quelconque prÃ©jugÃ© A l'encontre des requÃ©rants . Les preuves produites ont montrÃ© au ccntraire que la possibilitÃ© de choisir entre un jugement rendu par un magistrat et un jury ou par un magistrat seul permet d'Ã©liminer tout prÃ©jugÃ© susceptible d'exister au sein d'un jury dont lea membres proviendraient d'une communautÃ© oÃ¹ existent des prÃ©jugÃ©s de caractÃ¨re sectaire . D'ailleurs, la dÃ«cieion rendue dans l'affaire Moore contre Shillington dÃ©montre abondaassent le contraire . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur contest e que lee individus qui ont rÃ©clamÃ© une indemnitÃ© aient fai . Les allÃ©gations concernant MM . Kearn s tl'objedracsi et Kelly ae sont rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©es dÃ©pourvues de fondement et le dossier rÃ©vÃ¨le que MM . Duffy et Bradley ont persistÃ© A Ãªtre impliquÃ©e dane des activitÃ©s terroristes, ce qui a obligÃ© les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© Ã continuer de s'occuper d'eux . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait observer que MM . Carlin, McBride, Kelly et Kearne n'ont pas entamÃ© de procÃ©dure civile avant 1974 . Des indemnitÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© versÃ©es dans un trÃ¨s grand nombre de cas dans lesquels le demandeur se plaignait de mauvais traitements et il n'y a pas de raison de croire que, si les actions avaient Ã©tÃ© poursuivies, une indemnisation n'aurait pas Ã©tÃ© versÃ©e par voie de rÃ¨glement ou en vertu d'une dÃ©cision judiciaire . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur attire aussi l'attention, d'une part, sur les enquÃ©tes qui ont Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©es sur les plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es par les requÃ©rants et, d'autre part, .sur les poursuites entamÃ©es dans les affaires Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy . Il est ainsi prouvÃ© que des recours, d'un type que la Commission a prÃ©cÃ©demment considÃ©rÃ© comme efficace,existaient bel et bien, qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exercÃ©s avec euccÃ¨s dans certains cae et qu'ils Ã©taient ouverts dans les autres . Le fait que les affaires qui n'ont pas fait l'objet d'un rPglement Ã l'amiable en soient Ã un stade moins avancÃ© doit Ãªtre imputÃ© dans une trÃ©s large mesure au fait que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas fait valoir plus t8t leurs prÃ©tentions . Il n'existe aucune preuve de l'existence, A un quelconque niveau, d'une pratique administrative qui aurait empÃªchÃ© les tribunaux de faire justice et d'accorder une rÃ©paration effective dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable . Il es t prouvÃ©, au contraire, que lee bribunaux ont fonctionnÃ©normalement, encore qu'avec certaine lenteur imputable Ã l'accroissement du nombre des affaires de terrorisme, qu'ils n'ont subi aucune pression de la part de l'ExÃ©cutif, et que les juges ont Ã©tÃ© impartiaux . Les recours sont Ã©galement efficaces et applicables, que les requÃ©rants se plaignent de mauvais traitements particuliers ou de mauvais traitements subis dans le cadre d'une pratique administrative . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient en consÃ©quence, qu e
l'Ã©puisement de ces voies de recours Ã©tait, conformÃ©ment aux articles 25 et 26, une condition prÃ©alable A l'exercice, par la Commission, de sa juridiction . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ la question de la recevabilitÃ© a Ã©tÃ© jointe au fond et reste Ã trancher ,
- 145 -
l'examen du fond de l'affaire a rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© qu'il existe des recours efficaces et suffisants et que les sept requÃªtes devraient Ã©tre toutes rejetÃ©es pour non-Ã©puisement de ces voies de recours ou, Ã titre subsidiaire et dans les cas oS une indemnitÃ© a Ã©tÃ© versÃ©e, pour le motif qu'il a Ã© tÃ© fait droit aux prÃ©tentions des requÃ©rants et que ceux-ci ne peuvent plus prÃ©tendre Ã©tre victimes d'une violation, au sens de l'article 25 . En ordre plus subsidiaire, il estime que la Commission devrait prendre note du fait que des versements ont Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©s et acceptÃ©s comme faisant pleinement droit aux prÃ©tentions formulÃ©es, et qu'elle de v rait conclure qu'au regard de la Convention dans son ensemble, et en particulier de l'article 13, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a satisfait aux obligations lui incombant en vertu de la Convention . En ce qui concerne les requÃ©rants dont les actions sont encore pendantes, il est d'avis q -j e 3i la Commission n'est pas disposÃ©e Ã faire justice de chacune des requÃ©tes en dÃ©cidant qu'il n'y a pas eu violation de la Convention ou qu'elles devraient Ã©tre rejetÃ©es pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, la 9olution adÃ©quate consiste Ã ajourner la dÃ©cision j usqu'Ã l'ac o utissement des procÃ©dures internes . A :'audience , le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a affirmÃ© qu'il 4tait prouvr que les voies de recours internes en Irland e du lbrd n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tournÃ©es de leur but ou rendues inefficaees . Les tribunaux d'Irlande du Nord sont totalement indÃ©pendants de l'ExÃ©cutif, puissants, impartiaux et justes . L es cbservations des requÃ©rants sur "le prÃ©jugÃ© inhÃ©rent du systÃ¨me en faveur des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©" donnent Ã penser, semhle-t-il, que les tribunaux ont eux a -i ssi ce genre de prÃ©jugÃ© . ~ette allÃ©gation est dÃ©nuÃ©e de fondement . Pendant 6 annÃ©es, au cours desquelles il a fallu faire face Ã la campagne terroriste la plus meurtriÃ¨re et la plus crueLle qu'une dÃ©mocratie europÃ©enne ait eu Ã supporter Ã une Ã© poque rÃ©cente, campagne qui a comportÃ© notamment l'assassinat de magistrats Ã leur domicil e ou l'infliction de blessures,les tribunaux ont administrÃ© la justice de faÃ§on Ã© quitable et impartiale . La thÃ¨se selon laquelle les indennitÃ©s versÃ©es Ã FiM .Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy et - MCBride n'ont qu'un caractÃ¨re gracieux, est dÃ©pourvue de fondement . S'ils avaient souhaitÃ© obtenir d'un tribunal qu ' il dÃ©clare qu'ils avaient Ã©tÃ© maltraitcs, ils auraient pu le faire . Ils demeuraient libres de rejeter les offres faites et de saisir les tribunaux . En ce qui concerne la thÃ¨se des requÃ©rants selon laquelle ils sont fondÃ©s Ã obtenir une rÃ©paration de caractÃ¨re dÃ©claratoire, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait â¢ :aloir que dans le contexte d'une requÃ©te introduite sur la base de l'article 2 5 de la Convention, l'Etat est tenu de sauvegarder les droits et les libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention e, s'il y a une violation ou une sÃ©rie de violations, Sâ¢aÂ° ,~ order une rÃ©paration .
1uE -
La tÃ¢che de la Commission, telle qu'elle est dÃ©crite Ã l'article 19, consiste Ã veiller au respect des engagements souscrits par l'Etat . L'Etat reprÃ©sente la premiÃ¨re ligne de dÃ©fense et la Commission a pour tÃ¢che le veiller Ã ce que l'Etat assure la protection des droits ou verse des dÃ©dommagements . La Commission n'est pas un tribunal auquel les individus s'adressent pour obtenir une certaine forme d . Si, aprÃ¨s avoir procÃ©dÃ© Ã l'enquÃ©te prÃ©vue Ã edÃ©cison l'article 28 (a), la Commission conclut Ã la violation de l'un des droits fondamentaux Ã©noncÃ©a dans les articles 2 Ã 12, mais constate que l'Etat a rÃ©parÃ© la violation en procÃ©dant Ã une restitutio ininte rum ou, si cela n'Ã©tait pas possible, en accor an une an emnitÃ©, l'Etat n'a pas manquÃ© aux obligations qui lui incombent en vertu de la Convention et il n'y a pas lieu Ã dÃ©claration . MÃ©me si un Etat a contrevenu globalemen t Ã ses obligations, il n'y a aucune raison de faire une dÃ©claration dans le sens oÃ¹ l'entendent les requÃ©rants . C'est ce qui ressort clairement de l'article 3 2 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur se rÃ©fÃ¨re en outre Ã la dÃ©cision rendue par la Commission sur la requÃªte nÂ° 5575/72 (DÃ©cisions et Rapports, I/44) , La thÃ¨se selon laquelle en versant une indemnitÃ©, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur monnaie le droit de torturer, dÃ©forme complPtement les faits ainsi que les concepts de la Convention, qui sont illustrÃ©s par l'affaire citÃ©e et par les faits des prÃ©sentes affaires . La Commission traite de sept affaires diffÃ©rentes et distinctes . Dans une situation comme celle de l'Irlande du Nord, il se produit forcÃ©ment des cas dans lesquels des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© vont au-delÃ de ce qui est permis et infligent de mauvais traitements Ã des individus . MÃªme lorsque cela arrive un certain nombre de fois ; il ne s'eneuit pas que l'on se trouve devant une pratique ; en fait, il s'agit lÃ de rÃ©actions trÃ¨s humaines qu'un Etat doit prendre soin de cantonner dans des limites strictes, et d'enrayer dans toute la mesure du possible, quitte, s'i1 ne le peut pas, Ã accorder une indemnisation . L'article 26 est conÃ§u pour s'intÃ©grer dans l'ensemble des obligations qu'ont les Etats de sauvegarder les droits et d'accorder rÃ©paration . Il s'agit expressÃ©ment d'une disposition procÃ©durale . La Commission n'aâ¢pas Ã se saisir d'une affaire avant que l'occasion n'ait Ã©tÃ© donnÃ©e Ã l'Etat de remÃ©dier Ã la situation . Dans les prÃ©sentes affaires, la Commission a eu des doutes, Ã l'Ã©poque de sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ©, sur le point de savoir s'il existait des recours suffisants et efficaces, et la question a Ã©tÃ© jointe au fond . La Commission traite maintenant le fond . Des indemnitÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© versÃ©es dans chaque cas et librement acceptÃ©es comme suffisantes . Dans les cas d e
MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, ces indemnitÃ©s comportaient des dommages-intSrÃ©ts "exemplaires" (exemplary) . L'Etat a accordÃ© une rÃ©paration conformÃ©ment aux exigences de la Convention . La Commiseion n'a pas Ã©tÃ© crÃ©Ã©e pour accorder une rÃ©paration allant au-de16 de celle octroyÃ©e par un Etat conformÃ©ment Ã s a lÃ©gislation, a fortiori lorsque la rÃ©paration a Ã©tÃ© librement acceptÃ©e par les requÃ©rents .
- 147 -
I1 a don_ Ã© tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© qu'il existe des recourc et qu'-1 un a toujours e . . :stE . Des dÃ©cisions de procÃ©dure ne sauraient r.rancher des ?uestions de fond, et la question de fond, en l'espÃ¨ce, rÃ©s :de dans l'obligation fondamentale qu'a l'Etat el'assurer la pr o tection des droits ou d'accorder une rÃ©paration . i,es requÃ©rants paraissent soutenir que, lc Comc.ission ayant dÃ©cidÃ© qu'il eristait un commencement de preuve d'une pratique administrative, il en rÃ©sulte que, quelles que soient ses conclusions au sujet de l'existence de recours, la dÃ©cision de procÃ©dure sign? .'ie que la question des voies de recours internrs n'entre pas e n ligne de compte dÃ©s lors que l'existence d'une pratique ser3it Ã©tablie . Les requÃ©rants paraissent adopter, vis-Ã -vis de ls nrocÃ©dure devant la Commissior i , un: approche formelle et s -u cenir que la question des voies de recours internes est sans pertinence, non pas Ã raison de ce que les faits ont re vÃ©lÃ©, mais Ã raison de la formulc ~ttlisÃ©e . Le Gouvernement cÃ©fendeur rejette cette approche . MÃ©me si la Commission concluait qu'Ã un certain niveau, intermÃ©diaire ou infÃ©rieur, il a^xistÃ© une certaine .forme de pratique, il n' y a pas eu v_olat-on de la Convention dans les cas oÃ¹ une rÃ©paration a Ã©tÃ© a~ccrdÃ©e . Il a Ã©tÃ© montrÃ© que les recours Ã©taient suffisants et efficaces, et aucune dÃ©cision de p ro cÃ©dure ne peut rien y changer . S'il existe des recours efficaces pour un requÃ©rant qui a Ã©prouvÃ© ur. crÃ©judice corporel du fait d'un acte dÃ©libÃ©rÃ© mais isolÃ©, ces recours sont Ã©galement ouverts lorsque le requÃ©rant a su o i un prÃ©judice corporel dans le cadre d'une pratique . La q a estion des voies de recours internes reste Ã trancher du fait que la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© de la joindre au fond . Elle est pendante en ce qui concerne des actes particuliers et reste Ã trancher en ce qui concerne une quelconque pratique administrative . Dans l'Affaire grecque, il a Ã©tÃ© dit que s'il existe une pratique administrative les recours sont gÃ©nÃ©ralemen* inefficaces et dÃ©tournÃ©s de leur vÃ©ritable but . Il ne s'ensuit pas nÃ©cessa'-rement que cela soit inÃ©vitable ou certain . Le versement d'indemnitÃ©s aux requÃ©rants a eu pour consÃ©quence, aux yeux du Oouvernement dÃ©fendeur, qu'ils ne peuvent plus orÃ©tendre Ãª tre des victimes et qu'il n'y a donc plus matiÃ¨re Ã l'Ã©laboration pÃ¢r la Commission d'un rapport conforme , l'article 31 . La Commission devrait aussi tenir compte de ces quatre affaires, ainsi que du fait que des indemnitÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© versÃ©es dans 287 cas, pour l'examen des trois autres af'aires, et elle devrait donner suite Ã sa dÃ©cision de joindre au fond la question se posant sous l'angle d e l'article 2E er. dÃ©clarant les prÃ©sentes affaires irrecevables pour nor.-Ã©puiser.ent des voies de recours internes . Le Oouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que, d'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale, l'obligation qu'a l'Etat d'accorder une rÃ©paration ne lui impose pas de s'occuper Ã la fois du coupa b le et de la victime . Le systÃ¨me de dÃ©dommagement n'implique pas nÃ©cessairement que 1"-tat satisfasse le dÃ©sir de revanche de la victirt :e .
- 148 -
Les obligations incombant Ã l'Etat sont satisfaites dÃ¨s lors que celui-ci a accordÃ© une indemnitÃ« . Quoi qu'il en soit, il y a eu poursuites dans trois des prÃ©aentes affaires . Ainsi, mÃªm e
si l'Etat Ã©tait tenu de prendre certaines mesures complÃ©mentaires, il a satisfait Ã ses obligations dans ces affaires . Le pouvoir exÃ©cutif ne peut pas lui-mÃ©me obtenir une condamnation . En c e qui concerne les autres requÃ©rants, ils ont refusÃ© de prendre part au processus nÃ©cessaire pour entamer des poursuites, et le Gouvernement dÃ«fendeur n'a donc aucune autre obligation Ã cet Ã«gard . EN DROIT LA TACHE INCOMBANT A LA COMIAISSIO N La Commission rappelle que le 5 avril 1973 elle a dÃ©cid Ã© de dÃ©clarer recevable le grief des requÃ©rants selon lequel ils ont t victimes d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention ; et 2, de 'oindre
l'examen du fond toute question relativ e
aux voies di recoure qut auraient d6 Ã©tre Ã©puisÃ©es par Ã chacun des requÃ©rants, en tant que victimes prÃ©tendues d'actes particuliera, distincts d'une telle pratique administrative . Les faits ont maintenant Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©s de faÃ§on approfondie, en ce qui concerne tant les mauvais traitements allÃ©guÃ©s pa r chaque requÃ©rant que les voies de recours qui leur Ã©taient ouvertes . La procÃ©tlure a permis de confirmer la relation de fait entr e ces questions . Toutefois ; la question des voies de recours doit Ã©tre tranchÃ©e avant toute conclusion sur le fontl des allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements . En procÃ©dant Ã l'examen de cette question prÃ©liminaire, la Commission ne formule aucune conclusion en ce qui concerne les allÃ©gations dÃ© mauvais traitements, sauf dan s la mesure oÃ¹ elles ne sont pas 'contestÃ©es . Sur le plan de la procÃ©dure, la question des voies de recours internes (chiffre (2) ci-dessus), bien que jointe au fond, doit nÃ©anmoins Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme concernant la recevabilitÃ© des requÃ©tes . Il s'ensuit que mÃ¨me 4 prÃ©sent, elle doit Ã©tre tranchÃ©e par la Commission par application des articles 26 et 27 de la Convention et non faire l'objet du rapport prÃ©vu par les articles 30 et ;i . Au cas oÃ¹ la Commission conclurait Ã l'irrecevabilitÃ© sur ce point, la question de . l'application de l'article 29 Ã 1 ; partie de '_a requÃ©te d"-jÃ dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable (chiffre (1) ci- :essus) se poserait .
- 149 -
~,es requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent qu'aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ©s en avr"- 1 -,7 2 sous divers chefs d'inculpation, chacun d'entre eux a Ã©tÃ© ;c u mis par des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© du 0ouverr.enect dÃ©fendeur Ã des traitements contraires Ã l'article 'de la Convention, et que ces traitements s'inscr'- :er.t dans le cadre d'une pratique administrative systÃ©matique contraire Ã l'article 3 . _ :s font valoir que, dans la mesure od ils ont Ã©tÃ© victimes de la pratique administrative allÃ©guÃ©e, les dispositions de '-'article 26 de la Convention exigeant l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes ne sont pas aoplicables car l'exis_ence de cette pratique aboutit nÃ©cessairement Ã rendre les recours internes inefficaces ou insuffisants . Ils font valoir, par ailleurs, que mÃ©me s'ils n'ont pas â¬tÃ© victimes d'une pr3tique administrative, les recours existant en Irlande du .` :or= Staient inefficaces ou insuffisants . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fentleur reconnait que certains des requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ©s, alors qu'ils Ã©taient dÃ©tenus par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, et que d'autres ont Ã©prouvÃ© des pr?j . :--es corporels, encore qu'il conteste, en tout ou en pare, --s allÃ©gations particuliÃ¨res des requÃ©rants . Il souc :er. : ; .:'un requÃ©rant ?nvoquant l'artiole 2 5 n'est pas hat1 soulever devant la Commission la question de l'e :: :s-ence, en tant que telle, d'une pratique administrative con :r ;_r= = l'article 3 . I1 reconnait toutefois qu'd l'occasion d'une :=_le requÃªte, la question peut se poser de savoir s i une pratique administrative a eu ou non pour effet de priver d'eff'_cacitÃ© les voies de recours internes . ?1 nie qu'il ait existÃ© en :rlande du Nord, Ã l'Ã©poque des faits, une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3 ou une pratique administrative ayant eu pour effet de rendre inefficaces les recours internes . Dans une situation d'exception comme celle qui rÃ©gnait en Irlande du Nord Ã :'Ã©poque des faits, i1 est inÃ©vitable, selon lui, que des cas de mauvais traitements infligÃ©s par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© se produisent, mais les autoritÃ©s se sont efforcÃ©es d'empÃ©cher ces incidents . :e Gouvernement soutient par ailleurs que le requÃ©rant qui inâ¢itque 1'article 25 de la Convention est tenu d'avoir Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours qui lui Ã©taient ouvertes, Ã moins qu'il ne soit dÃ©montrÃ© que celles-ci Ã©taient inefficaces . Selon le Gcuiernement, les voies de recours existant en Irland e du Ncrd Ã©taient efficaces et suffisantes et les requÃ©tes doivent donc ztre dÃ©clarÃ©es irrecevables au motif que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours dispDnibles ou, Ã titre sutsidizire dans le cas des quatre requÃ©rants qui ont obtenu une ir.,a ecoitÃ© au motif qu'ils ne peuvent olis prÃ©tendre Ã©tre . victimee d'une violation de la Convention, au sens d e ' l'artil' .e 2j
- :Ã§ 0 -
Aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention, la Commission ne peut Ã©tre saisie d'une requÃªte qu'aprÃ¨s Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . Selon cette disposition, un requÃ©rant est t_nu de faire un "usage normal" des recours "vraisemblablement efficaces et suffisants" pour porter remÃ¨de Ã ses griefs (cf . dÃ©cisions de la Commission nÂ° 788/60, Autriche contre Italie, Annuaire 4, p . 173 ; nÂ° 4340/69, Simon-Herold contre Autriche, Annuaire 14, p . 353)â¢ Lorsqu'un requÃ©rant exerce ces recours et obtient par lÃ mÃ©me, eur le plan interne, une rÃ©paration adÃ©quate de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de la Convention, il ne peut plus prÃ©tendre Ãªtre victime d'une violation . Etant donnÃ© qu'en vertu de l'article 2 5 un individu ne peut introduire une requÃ©te que s'il peut se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation, la requÃªte doit Ã©tr econsidÃ©recomeincompatibleavclesdipostinsdel a
Convention (cf . dÃ©cision de la Commission n' 5575/72, DÃ©cisions et Rapporte, 1/44) . Pour examiner la question prÃ©liminaire de la recevabilitÃ© , la Commission recherchera d'abord si des recours efficaces et suffisants existent pour remÃ©dier aux violations spÃ©cifiques de l'article 3 allÃ©guÃ©es par chaque requÃ©rant . II .
NATURE DES RECOURS DISPONIBLE S La nature des recours ouverts aux requÃ©rants est clairemen t
Ã©tablie et il n'existe aucun dÃ©saccord entre les parties Ã ce sujet . En premier lieu, une personne prÃ©tendant avoir fait l'objet de brutalltÃ©s ou d'une tentative de voies de fait de la part d'un membre de la police ou de l'armÃ©e peut, en vertu du droit commun, intenter une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃªts . Cette action peut Ã©tre intentÃ©e contre l'individu ou les individus visÃ©e, et il incombe au plaignant d'Ã©tablir la vraisemblance !"on the balance of probabilities") du fait que le ou les dÃ©fendeurs l'ont brutalisÃ© . Lorsqu'il est allÃ©guÃ© que des brutalitÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© exercÃ©es par un militaire en service, une action peut Ãªtre intentÃ©e contre la Couronne - en fait contr e
le MinistÃ¨re de la DÃ©fense - en vertu de la loi de 1947 sur le . De mÃ©me, lorsqu'il est ellÃ©guÃ© qu'uosaction relCun n membre du RUC est responsable, une action peut Ã©tre intentÃ©e contre le Commissaire principal du RUC en vertu de la loi de 1970 sur la police (Irlande du Nord) . Dans le cas des actions intentÃ©es contre le MinistÃ¨re de la DÃ©fense ou le Commissaire principal, il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire que le plaignant identifie l'individu qui l'a brutalisÃ© . Il obtiendra gain de cauae e'il parvient Ã Ã©tablir la vraisemblance du fait au'il a Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ© par un ou plusieurs membres de la police ou de l'armÃ«e . Cet e action en dom ages-intÃ©rÃ©ts peut Ã©tre intentÃ©e ,
au choix du plaignant, soit devant le Tribunal de comtÃ© ("County Court'),qui ne peut accorder que des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts limitÃ©s, soit devant le Tribunal rÃ©gional ("High Court"), qui peut accorder des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts illimitÃ©s . Non seulemen t
- 151 -
le plaitnant peut demander des dommages-intÃ©rÃªts en rÃ©paration d'urie pcrtv ciatÃ©râ¢ie11e s u bie et de prrv?judices ou souffrances physiques prouvÃ©s, nais encore il peut demander des dommagesint~rÃ©ts "m.ajorÃ©s" et "exemplaires", dans le cas oÃ¹ il allÃ¨gue avoir tâ¢tÃ© dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment et abusivement brutalisÃ© par un agent de l'Etat . Une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃªts intentÃ©e devant le 'fribunal râ¬gional pe :t Ãªtre jugÃ©e soit par un rtiagistrrt unique, soit par un magistrat et un jury . Le plaignant peut signifier au'i1 souhaite Ã©tre J u`Ã© par un magistrat unique . Si l a Couronne a le droit de signifier en rÃ©ponse qu'elle souhaite qur l'affaire soit juâ¬Ã©e par ur. magistrat et un jury, en pratique elle ne le r'ait gÃ©nÃ©ralement pas . Lorsqu'une action est jugÃ©e, les dommages-intÃ©rÃªts son : fixÃ©s par le magistrat ou le jury . En pratique, la majoritÃ© aes actions civiles dans lesquelles il est allÃ©guÃ© que des brutalitÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© exercÃ©es par des membres des rorces de sÃ©curitÃ© font l'objet, en Irlande du Nord, tl'uri rÃ¨glerient av.iabe avart d'Ã©tre portÃ© ffi devant les tribunaux . Ainsi, sur =31 affaires engagÃ©es entre le 9 aoÃ»t 1971 et l e iu septembre 197 ;, et terminÃ©es depuis lors, 11 seulement ont Ã©tÃ© juZÃ©es, les autres aya n t fait l'objet d'un rÃ¨glement amiable . Une autre possibilitÃ© d'obtenir rÃ©paratiori de prÃ©judice s corporels imputables . des brutalitÃ©s consiste Ã intenter une action en rÃ©paration contre l'Etat conformÃ©ment Ã la loi de 19b8 sur la rÃ©paration des atteintes Ã l'intÃ©gritÃ© des personne s en Irlande du Nord . En vertu de cette loi, un Tribunal de comtÃ© peut, lorsqu'il a 1"-ntime conviction qu'un plaignant a subi un prÃ©judice corporel rÃ©sultant directement d'une infraction pÃ©nale, et sous rÃ©serve que certaines autres conditions soient rÃ©unies, accorder au plaignant une indemnitÃ© . Lorsqu'une autre indemnitÃ© a Ã©tÃ© obtenue, par exemple dans le cadre d'une action e n dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts contre l'auteur de l'infraction, cette indemnitÃ© est dÃ©duite de 1a somme accordÃ©e en vertu de la loi ou, si elle a Ã©tÃ© obtenue plus tard, elle doit Ã©tre versÃ©e au MinistÃ¨re responsable dans la mesure oÃ¹ elle ne dÃ©passe pas l'indemnitÃ© lÃ©gale . _ a somme susceptible d'Ãªtre accordÃ©e est illimitÃ©e, encore que la loi fixe certaines conditions pour le calcul du montant apprcpriÃ© . La somme accordÃ©e ne doit pas comprendre les dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts "majorÃ©s" ou "exemplaires" . Outre la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir une indemnitÃ©, il existe des procÃ©dures menant Ã des enquÃ©tes sur les plaintes dÃ©posÃ©es contre des membres les forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, enquÃªtes qui peuvent abxtir Ã des poursates ou Ã des actions de caractÃ¨re disciplinaire . Dans le cas _'une plainte dirigÃ©e contre un membr e du RUJ, le Coma :ssaire urir:cipal est tenu, en vertu de l'article 1} dc L- :a'_ je :970 sur la police (Irlaride du Nord), de "aire pro-Ã©der ' une er.ouÃ©te . En pratique, ces enquÃ©tes sont effectuÃ©e : par ur, poli :ier nort,^.Ã© ~er le Commissa :re principal . . Ce policier est gÃ©-.Ã©ra_er,ent d'un grade supÃ©rieur Ã l'agen t du grade le plus Ã©levÃ© visÃ© par la plainte et vient d'une rÃ©gion diffÃ©rente . La police est auss : charPÃ©e d'enquÃ©ter sur les plaintes contre : arnÃ©=, ec_ore que les dÃ©clarations de milita' .e s
152 -
soient en fait recueillies par des membres de la "Section spÃ©ciale d'investigation" de la . .Police militaire royale, et transmises au RUC .Dans l'un et l'autre cas, il appartenait, A l'Ã©poque des faits, au Chef du Parquet de dÃ©cider, sur la baae du rapport d'enquÃ©te, s'il convenait ou non de poursuivre dea membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Dans une poursuite pÃ©nale, il incombe Ã la Couronne de prouver avec une quasi-certitude ("beyond reasonable doubt") la culpabilitÃ© de chaque individu accueÃ© . La Commission estime que la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir une indemnisation peut,dans des circonstances normales, reprÃ©senter un recours efficace et suffisant pour l'individu qui se plaint d'avoir subi des mauvais traitements contraires ! l'article 3 de la Convention (cf . dÃ©cision de la Commission nÂ° 4225/69 vol . 33, Pâ¢ ,XcontrelRyaum-Uni,ecldÃ©ison34)â¢ , Ceci est admis par les requÃ©rants, qui font valoir, toutefois, que dans les circonstances particulitree rÃ©gnant en Irland e du Nord, les recours existants n'Ã©taient ni efficacee n . En consÃ©quence, la Commission a examinÃ©, Ã¢ l ieufants Ã© lÃ©ments de preuve produite et de l'argumentatio n alumiÃ©reds des parties, le point de savoir s'il a Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli qu'il existait des circonstances particuliÃ©res dispensant les requÃ©rante, conformÃ©ment aux principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus, d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours disponiblee .A cet Ã©gard, elle a examinÃ© en particulier le point de savoir si les recours existants Ã©taient efficaces en pratique et s'ils Ã©taient suffisante pour porter remÃ¨de aux griefs des requÃ©rants . III . LES DEMARCHES ENTREPRISES PAR LE S
REQUERANTS POU R
Avant d'examiner ces questions en dâ¬tail, il est utile de rappeler briPvement les dÃ©marches que chacun des requÃ©rants a entreprises pour obtenir rÃ«paration devant les tribunaux internes . Chacun d'eux a engagÃ© une action civile en dommagesintÃ©rÃ©ts . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy ont essignÃ© les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes le 16 mai 1972, Carlin le 22 octobre 1974 et Kelly et Kearns en avril 1974 . Les actions intentÃ©es par les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy et McBride ont fait l'objet d'un rÃ¨glement amiable, tandis que .â¢celles qui ont Ã© tÃ© engagÃ©es par les trois autres requÃ©rants sont encore pendantes Ã la date de la prÃ©sente dÃ©cision . Aux termes des rÃ©glements amiables qu'ils ont conclus, les requÃ©rants Donnelly et Bradley ont reÃ§u chacun Duffy 6 .000 livree, 5 .000 livres de dommages-intÃ©rÃªts, le requÃ©rant et le requÃ©rant MeBride 301 livres . Chacun de ces requÃ©rants a aussi obtenu le remboursement de ses frais de justice . Dans l e
cas de McBride, le rÃ¨glement amiable n'a Ã©tÃ©assorti d'aucune reconnaissance de responsabilitÃ© de la part du dÃ©fendeur, en l'occurrence le Commissaire principal .
- 153 -
IV . L'EFFICACITE PRATIQUE DU SYSTEME D'INDE MNISATIO N La Commission examinera d'abord le point de savoir si le droit d'obtenir rÃ©paration Ã©tait effectif en pratique . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que le droit A un recours efficace comporte non seulement la possibilitÃ© thÃ©orique d'obtenir rÃ©paration, mais aussi les droits complÃ©mentaires nÃ©cessaires pour rendre effectif en pratique le droit d'obtenir rÃ©paration . Ils estiment, en particulier, qu'un individu doit pouvoi r Ã©tre sÃ»r que les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ne feront pas obstacle H ses dÃ©marches et ne lui infligeront pas des tracasseries . Ils renvoient aux preuves qu'ils ont produites du fait que certains des prÃ©sents requÃ©rants, ainsi que d'autres personnes dont les dâ¬positions ont Ã©tÃ© soumises, ont fait l'objet de tracasseries, et ils prÃ©tendent que lee forces de sÃ©curitÃ© font trÃ¨ s gÃ©nÃ©ralement subir des tracasseries et des reprÃ©sailles aux individus qui dÃ©posent des plaintes contre elles, et que la crainte de ces tracasseries est trÃ¨s rÃ©pandue dans la communautÃ© catholique . Ils font Ã©galement rÃ©fÃ©rence au prÃ©tendu "manque de confiance trÃ¨s gÃ©nÃ©ral" de la communautÃ© catholique dans les recours offerts par la loi . Dans leurs exposÃ©s Ã©crits et oraux Ã la Commission, MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy ont tous trois prÃ©tendu avoir fait l'objet de tracasseries . Les dÃ©tails de ces allÃ©gÃ©tions figurent ci-avant . M . Donnelly fait rÃ©fÃ©rence dans une dÃ©claration Ã©crite, Ã trois incidents particuliers qui ont eu lieu entr e juin 1972 et son dÃ©part pour la RÃ©publique d'Irlande , en noverbre . La Commission considÃ¨re comme fonciÃ¨rement exacte la version de ces incidents donnÃ©e par M . Donnelly, version qui n'a d'ailleurs pas Ã©tÃ© contredite ou mise en question par l'avocat du dÃ©fendeur ; toutefois, elle considÃ¨re qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli que ces incidents Ã©taient liÃ©s aux plaintes pour mauvais traitements plutbt qu'aux soupÃ§ons des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ou encore Ã une activitÃ© de surveillance normale . M . Bradley s'est plaint d'un certain nombre d'incidents, en particulier d'opÃ©rations contre son domicile entre juin 1972 et .mars 1973 . Il ressort nÃ©anmoins des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve qu'il a Ã©tÃ© soupÃ§onnÃ© Ã divers moments par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© d'Ã©tre impliqu Ã© dans des activitÃ©s illÃ©gales, et la Commission ne considÃ¨re pas comme Ã©tabli que ces divers incidents Ã©taient liÃ©s Ã ses plaintes . M . Duffy se plaint aussi d'avoir subi des tracasseries . En particulier, il se plaint d'un certain nombre d'opÃ©rations contre son domicile, d'avoir Ã©tÃ© apprÃ©hendÃ© pour un prÃ©tendu vol de voiture et menacÃ© par l'agent de la police judiciaire M ., l'un des policiers accusÃ©s de l'avoir brutalisÃ©, et d'avoi r Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ©, au cours du procÃ©s de M ., B . et C ., en mars 1973, sous l'inculpation, inventÃ©e de toutes o!Ã¨ces, d'enlÃ¨vement ("kidnapping") . Toutefoi~, il ressort des Ã©lâ¬ments de preuve dont dispose la Commission que l'IRA a Ã©tÃ© trÃ¨s active dans la zone oÃ¹ M . Duffy habitait, et que des demÂ±ciies ont frÃ©quemmen t
- 15 4 -
Ã©tÃ© perquisitionnÃ©s et des individus arrÃ©tÃ©s pour Ã©tre interrogÃ©s par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Il n'est pas contestÃ© que Duffy a Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable de deux chefs d'accusation liÃ©s Ã la tentative de vol d'un vÃ©hicule environ 2 semaines aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© prÃ©tendument menacÃ© oar l'agent de la police judiciaire M . Il ressort ausei des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve fournis Ã la Commission, et notamment de la transcription du compte rendu du procÃ¨s de M . Duffy, que suffisamment de soupÃ§ons peeaient sur lui pour justifier son arrestation et son jugement sous l'inculpation d'enlPvement . La Commission note, pa . Duffy a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© au cours du procÃ¨s de raileuqM M . , B . et C . parce que, apparemment, il avait rÃ©sidÃ© en RÃ©publique d'Irlande pendant un certain temps avant le jugement . A la lumiÃ¨re de l'ensemble des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve disponibles sur cette question, la Commission rejette en consÃ©quence l'allÃ©gation de M . Duffy selon laquelle l'accusation d'enlÃ¨vement dirigÃ©e contre lui aurait Ã©tÃ© fabriquÃ©e de toutes piÃ¨ces aux fins d'entraver les poursuites contre M ., B . et C . En outre ,
elle considÃ¨re qu'il n'est pas Ã©tabli que d'autres activitÃ©s des torces de eÃ©curitÃ© incriminÃ©es par M . Duffy aient fait partie d'une campagne de tracasseries liÃ©e Ã ses plaintes, au lieude rÃ©sulter des soupÃ§ons des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . A supposer mÃªme, comme il l'a prÃ©tendu, qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© menacÃ© une fois par l'agent de la police judiciaire M . alors qu'il Ã©tait en Ã©tat d'arrestation, la Commission ne considÃ¨re pas qu'il soit Ã©tabli que son arrestation et sa dÃ©tention Ã cette occasion soient liÃ©es Ã ses plaintes . D'autre part, la Commission a examinÃ© le point de savoir si les activitÃ©e des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, abetraction faite de leurs objectifs, ont effectivement empÃ©chÃ© cee trois requÃ©rante d'obtenir rÃ©paration . A cet Ã© gard, il faut noter que les trois requÃ©rants ont tous poursuivi leurs actions devant les juridictions internes et ont bien obtenu rÃ©paration, encore qu'avec un certain retard . Leure allÃ©gations de tracasseries se rapportent toutes Ã la pÃ©riode compriee approximativement entre juin 1972 et mars 1973, mais il n'apparait pas que des activitÃ©s dÃ«ployÃ©es par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© pendant cette pÃ©riode aient effectivement retardÃ« ou entravÃ© les actions intentÃ©es par les requÃ©rants devant les juridictions internes . Pendant assez longtemps, les requÃ©rants n'ont donnÃ© aucune suite aux assignations qu'ils avaient lancÃ©es . Toutefois, selon l'avocat des requÃ©rants, si aucune suite n'a Ã© tÃ© donnÃ©e jusqu'e n
mars 1973, c'est parce qu'i1 Ã©tait jugÃ© prÃ©fÃ©rable, sous l'angle de la pratique judiciaire, d'attendre la fin du procÃ¨s de M . , B . et C . Aucun de ces requÃ©rants n'a prÃ©tendu que c'est par peur des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© qu'i1 n'a pas poursuivi son action devant les juridictions internes . Certes, il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© que le fait que M . Donnelly ait rÃ©sidÃ© en RÃ©publique d'Irland e a suscitÃ© certaines difficultÃ©s au cours de la derniÃ¨re phase de l'instance, en ce qui concerne l'obtention de rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale et psychiatrique . Toutefois, des renseignemente dÃ©taillÃ©s n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© fournis sur ces difficultÃ©s ,
- 155 -
pas plus que sur les empÃªchements ou les retards qu'aurait subis la procÃ©dure intentÃ©e par M . Donnelly ; la Commission en conclut qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli que le dÃ©part d e '4 . Donnelly pour la RÃ©publique d'Irlande, Ã supposer mÃ©me qu'il faille l'attribuer Ã quelque action des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, lui ait causÃ© des difficultÃ©s plus grandes que celles qu'aurait normalement rencontrÃ©es un requÃ©rant s'efforÃ§ant d'exercer des recours Ã partir du territoire d'un pays Ã©tranger . Le requÃ©rant Carlin prÃ©tend qu'il avait craint des tracasseries aprÃ¨s sa libÃ©ration de Long Kesh, en janvier 1974 . Il prÃ©tend avoir quittÃ© Londonderry parce qu'il aurait appris que l'ordonnance de dÃ©tention dont il avait fait l'obje t avait Ã©tÃ© reinise en vigueur . Il dÃ©clare en outre qu'il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© par deux fois aprÃ©s son retour et dÃ©tenu Ã chaque occasion pendant un temps assez court . Toutefois, il ne semble pas Ã©tablir un lien entre ces incidents et ses plaintes pour mauvais traitements . La Commission considÃ¨re en consÃ©quence qu'il n'est pas Ã©tabli que M . Carlin ait fait l'objet de tracasseries injustifiÃ©es . Sa prÃ©tendue crainte d'Ã©tre victime de tracasseries ou d'activitÃ©e d'extrÃ©mistes ne l'a pas , en rÃ©alitÃ©, empÃªchÃ© d'engager une procÃ©dure civile peu de temps aprÃ¨s sa sortie de prison . Il est certes allÃ©guÃ© que M . Carlin s'est rendu en RÃ©publique d'Irlande par crainte d'Ã©tre arrÃ©tÃ©, et que, de ce fait, ses avocats ont eu des difficultÃ©s pour obtenir de lui une dÃ©claration de ressources aux fins de la prÃ©sentation d'une demande d'assistance judiciaire . Toutefois, ces difficultÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© surmontÃ©es, apparemment avec la coopÃ©ration des services de l'assistance judiciaire . Le requÃ©rant McBride a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu en permanence Ã partir du moment oÃ¹ il aurait subi des mauvais traitements . Il n'est pas allÃ©guÃ© qu'il a subi des tracasseries de la part des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ou qu'il a redoutÃ« ce genre de manoeuvres . Le requÃ©rant Kelly prÃ©tend avoir craint des tracasseries aprÃ¨s sa libÃ©ration, en novembre 1973 . Toutefois, il ne prÃ©tend pas avoir fait l'objet de tracasseries, et les craintes qu'il pouvait avoir ne I'ont pas empÃªchÃ© d'engager une action civile peu de temps, semble-t-il, aprÃ¨e sa libÃ©ration . Pour sa part , le requÃ©rant Kearns dÃ©clare qu'Ã aucun moment aprÃ¨s sa libÃ©ration il n'a eu peur d'engager une procÃ©dure civile . Il est allâ¬guÃ© qu'il a Ã©tÃ© arrâ¬tÃ© en juin 1974 et "encapuchonnÃ©" pendant plusieurs heures, mais M . Kearns n'a pas mentionnÃ© lui-mÃ©me ce traitement dans sa dÃ©position . Il semble toutefois qu'd cette occasion i l ait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu pendant deux jours environ et interrogÃ© au sujet d'un incident particulier et de questions y relatives, puis libÃ©rÃ© . Rien ne permet de penser que son arrestation ait Ã©tÃ© liÃ©e Ã ses plaintes .
- 156 -
Au sujet de la question de l'efficacitÃ© des recours, les requÃ©rants font aussi rÃ©fÃ©rence, comme il a Ã©tÃ© dit ci-dessus, Ã un prÃ©tendu manque gÃ©nÃ©ral de confiance de la communautÃ© catholique dans les voies de recours offertes par la loi . Dans leur requ2te initiale, ils ont aussi prÃ©tendu que "toute voie de recours interne existante est soumise Ã des dÃ©lais tels qu'elle devient illusoire" . Ils ont aussi laissÃ© entendre qu'un "appel devant les tribunaux peut Ãªtre rendu inopÃ©rant par le prÃ©jugÃ© inhÃ©rent au systÃ¨me en faveur des forces de eÃ©curitÃ©" . Pour rechercher si les arguments prÃ©sentÃ©s ci-dessus sont justifiÃ©s, la Commission examinera maintenant la question de savoir s'il est Ã©tabli que les tribunaux n'ont pas fonctionnÃ© effectivement en toute impartialitÃ© ou avec une cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© suffisante et si, pour l'une ou l'autre de ces raisons, ou pour le motif du prÃ©tendu manque de confiance, les prÃ©sents requÃ©rants Ã©taient, en l'espÃ¨ce, dispensÃ©s d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours qui leur Ã©taient ouvertes . Il est exact que dans un contexte de guerre civile, on peut avoir des doutes quant Ã l'impartialitÃ© des jurys . Il a Ã©tÃ© fait rÃ©fÃ©rence, en l'espÃ¨ce, au fait qu'un jury peut ne paÃ© Ãªtre bien disposÃ© Ã l'Ã©gard d'individus comme les prÃ©sente requÃ©rants . Il a aussi Ã©tÃ© avancÃ© que le verdict rendu pa r le jury dans le procÃ¨s de M ., B . et C . a Ã©tÃ© arbitraire ("perverse") . Bien que la Commission n'entende pas se prononcer sur ce point, elle note toutefois qu'il est trÃ¨s gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnu qu'en Irlande du Nord, les jurys sont susceptible s de rendre des verdicts arbitraires . La Commission Diplock a attirÃ© l'attention dans son rapport (1) sur le fait que les protestants ont davantege de chances que les catholiques de rÃ©unir les conditions nÃ©cessaires pour Ã©tre jurÃ©s, ainei que sur le fait que dans les affaires portant sur des infractions de caractÃ©re terroriste, S1 y a
un risque que des condamnations et des acquittemente arbitraires soient prononcÃ©s . La Commission tient ce risque pour inÃ©vitable en ce qui concerne les verdicts rendus par les jurys soi t Ã l'occasion d'actions civiles, soit dans le cadre de poursuites pÃ©nales faisant suite Ã des plaintes pour mauvais traitements dirigÃ©es par des individus soupÃ§onnÃ©s d'activitÃ©s terroristes contre des membres des forcesÂ«de sÃ©curitÃ© . En revanche, la Commission considÃ¨re qu'aucun Ã©lÃ©ment de preuve ne lui a Ã©tÃ© apportÃ© qui permettrait de conclure que lee juges d'Irlande du,Nord statuent autrement qu'impartialement dans les affaires mettant en cause les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . En particulier, il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© produit d'Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve permettant de penser que les juges font preuve de partialitÃ© er . faveur des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . Des dÃ©tails sur un certain nombr e
(1) Cf . chapitre 5, p .
17 .
- 157 -
d'affaires ont Ã©tÃ© fournis Ã la Commission, notamment sur un jugement rendu par le tribunal du comtÃ© d'Armagh, e n fÃ©vrier 1972, dans l'affaire Moore contre Shillington (action civile en dommages-intÃ©rÃªts intentÃ©e par un dÃ©tenu prÃ©tendant avoir fait l'objet de mauvais traitements), ainsi que sur un certain nombre d'affaires dans lesquelles les dÃ©positions de dÃ©tenus ont Ã©tÃ© jugÃ©es irrecevables au motif qu'elles n'avaient peut-Ã©tre pas Ã©tÃ© librement faites . Loin de rÃ©vÃ©ler un quelconque prÃ©jugÃ©, ces affaires montrent que les juges ont examinÃ© minutieusement les actes et les tÃ©moignages des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . La Commission rappelle qu'un plaignant est recevable Ã signifier qu'i1 souhaite Ã©tre jugÃ© par un magistrat unique . Il n'est pas contestÃ© que la Couronne accepte cela en la pratique, et la Commission en conclut qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© que les possibilitÃ©s pour un individu d'obtenir rÃ©paration dans le cadre d'une action civile aient Ã©tÃ© rÃ©ellement limitÃ©es par un quelconque prÃ©jugÃ© au sein dÃ©s jurys . S'agissant des prÃ©tendus retards, la Commission note que chacun des prÃ©sents requÃ©rants aurait pu faire preuve de beaucoup plus de diligence dans son action devant les tribunaux internes . Dans le cas des requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, il s'est Ã©coulÃ© un dÃ©lai important et en grande partie inexpliquÃ© entre le moment oÃ¹ ils ont assignÃ© en justice les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes, Ã savoir en mai 1972, et celuiod ils ont dÃ©posÃ© leurs demandes introductives d'instance, Ã savoi r
en mai 1974 au plus tÃ´t . Ces dÃ©lais sont imputables dans une large mesure aux requÃ©rants eux-mÃ¨mes ou Ã leurs conseils, et ils ne sauraient en aucune maniÃ¨re Ã©tre mis sur le compte des tribunaux . Il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© devant la Commission qu'une affaire peut durer en moyenne 4 ans environ, entre la date de la constitution d'avouÃ© et celle de l'aboutissement de l'action . Des dÃ©tails ont aussi Ã©tÃ© donnÃ©s sur les Ã©tapes nÃ©cessaire s de la procÃ©dure . Il en ressort que la premiÃ¨re Ã©tape consiste dans l'envoi d'une assignation, suivie de la notification de la demande plus dÃ©taillÃ©e introductive d'instance . Le dÃ©lai dans lequel la demande introductive d'instance est prÃ©sentÃ©e parait dÃ©pendre uniquement du demandeur ou de ses conseils . Les dÃ©fendeurs prÃ©sentent ensuite leur rÃ©ponse . Strictement parlant, celle-ci doit Ã©tre dÃ©posÃ©e dans les 21 jours de la date du dÃ©p6t de la demande introductive d'instance, mais en pratique le solicitor du plaignant accorde gÃ©nÃ©ralement un dÃ©lai plus long - 2 mois environ Ã©tant, semble-t-il, le dÃ©lai normal . L'â¬change des conclusions est clos 14 jours aprÃ¨s la prÃ©sentation de la dÃ©fense, ou Ã la date de prÃ©sentation d'un mÃ©moire complÃ©mentaire par le demandeur . En outre, il semble possible .pour chaque partie de prolonger la durÃ©e de la procÃ©dure Ã©crite pour des raisons telles que l'obtention de rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale . Une fois clos l'Ã©change des conclusions, l'affaire passe en jugement devant un juge et un jury au bout, semble-t-il, d e 18 mois au moins ; toutefois, si elle est jugÃ©e par un magistrat unique, ce tlÃ©lai est mo'ndre et peut Ãªtre rÃ©duit Ã enviro n 9 mois . Ces dÃ©lais s'expliquent par la surci~arge des tribunaux et des hommes de loi du fait de l'Ã©tat d'exception .
158 -
La Commission estime que, compte tenu de toutes les circonstances, le temps nÃ©cessaire Ã l'aboutissement d'une action civile devant le tribunal rÃ©gional n'Ã©taitpas dÃ©raisonnable, et elle en conclut qu'il n'a Pus Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© aue cette voie de recours devant les tribunaux internes a Ã©tÃ© soumise Ã des dÃ©lais tels qu'elle pouvait Ã©tre rendue inefficace o u
insuffisante . S'agissant du prÃ©tendu manque gÃ©nÃ©ral de confiance dans les recours offerts par la loi, la Commission note que deux requÃ©rants seulement ont fait rÃ©fÃ©rence dans leurs dÃ©positions Ã un manque de confiance dans les tribunaux Ã propoe de leurs actions internes en rÃ©paration . Toutefois, ce manque de confiance ne les a pas empÃ©chÃ©e d'intenter une action . Il reasort des donnÃ©ee chiffrÃ©ee eoumisee par les requÃ©rants, donnÃ©es qui ont Ã©tÃ© fournies par le Procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral en rÃ©ponse Ã une Question parlementaire, que 798 actions civiles pour brutalitÃ«sinfligÃ©es par les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ont Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©es entre le mois d'aoÃ»t 1971 et le mois de septembre 1975 ; en consÃ©quence, si manque de confiance il y a eu, il n'a pae empechÃ© un nombre apprÃ«ciable d'autres individus d'engager des procÃ©dures . MÃ©me si un manque gÃ©nÃ©ral de confiance peut constituer, Ã la lumiÃ¨re des constatations de la Commission sur le fonctionnement des tribunaux, une raison particuliÃ¨r erlvantu requÃ©antdel'obigatond'exrc lavoied e recours en question, il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© que les prÃ©sente requÃ©rante ont Ã©tÃ© rÃ©ellement influencg par ce genre de considÃ©rations . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants ont pu, Ã titre individuel, avoir .des doutes quant .Ã leurs chances de euccÃ©e, la Commiseion rappelle qu'elle a toujours considÃ©rÃ© qu'un simple doute sur les chances de succÃ©s d'un recours donnÃ« ne constitue point une circonstance particuliÃ¨re dispensant un requÃ©rant de l'exercer (cf . par exemple les dÃ©cisions de la Commission, nÂ° 1661/62, X . et Y . contre la Belgique ,
Annuaire 6, p . 369 et Recueil de dÃ©cisions 10, p . 162 e t nÂ° 712/60, Retimag contre la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, Annuaire Ã¼, p . 385, Recueil de dÃ©cisions 8, p . 29) . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent aussi qu'un individu devrait pouvoir Ãªtre sGr que sa demande ne sera pas vouÃ©e A1'Ã©chec par suite du manque de coopÃ©ration des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ,
de la suppression de preuve ou encore d'une collusion visant Ã nier qu'il ait subi des mauvais traitements . A ce sujet, ils a1lSguent que dans chacune des prÃ©sentes affaires, les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ont pratiquÃ© la dissimulation et la tromperie lorsque des allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements ont Ã©tÃ© formulÃ©es contre elles . Les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy ont chacun indiquÃ© dans leur dÃ©position que de nombreux soldat s les avaient vus pendant qu'ils se trouvaient dans le poste militaire . Leurs dÃ©clarations sont corroborÃ©es par celle s d'un tÃ©moin, membre des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, qui a reconnu qu'ils avaient pu Ã©tre vus par 20 Ã 7 0 soldats, s'ils s'Ã©taien trouvÃ©edanslcouirdposte ndatuceraintmps .
- 159 -
Par ailleurs, il ressort de la dÃ©position de ce tÃ©moin qu'un sous-ofCi :_er ainsi que deux ou trois soldats Ã©taient de garde dans la salle de police pendant la nuit en question, et qu'un certain ncmbre de sentinelles Ã©taient aussi de service . Il a Ã©tÃ© reconnu que ces 3 requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ©s dans le poste au cours de la nuit en question, et il est incontestÃ© qu'ils on :Ã©prouvÃ©, du fait de ces brutalitÃ©s, des dommages corporels relativement graves . La Commission note qu'en dÃ©pi t uu fait que les dÃ©positions d'un certain nombre de soldats aient, aemble-t-i?, Ã©tÃ© recueillies par un membre de la "Section sp Ã© ciale d'investigation" de la Police militaire - qui savait quels solCacs Ã©taienc de service aux heures critiques - aucu n de ces sol^_ats n'a reconnu, semble-t-il, avoir Ã©tÃ© impliquÃ© dans des ag :ss=ments rÃ©prÃ©nensibles . Aucun soldat de garde Ã â¢.e mocect n'a Ã©tÃ© appelÃ© par le MinistÃ¨re public A tÃ©moigne r au procÃ¨s de M ., B . et C ., et l'on peut donc en dÃ©duire qu'aucun des soldats n'a communiquÃ© aux enquÃªteurs des renseignements intÃ©ressants sur la maniZre dont les trois hommes avaient subi des prÃ©jud :ces corporels . _ tant donnÃ© les tÃ©moignages incontest -~. â¢ z- elatifs Ã la disposition des locaux du poste ainsi qu'Ã la nature des prÃ©judices corporels Ã©prouvÃ©s par les trois hommes, tÃ©moignages qui indiquent qu'ils ont chacun subi de graves urutalitÃ©s, la Commission considÃ©re qu'au moins certains des soldats de garde n'ont pas pu ne pas savoir que ces hommes avaient Ã©tÃ© brutalisÃ©s et par qui ils l'avaient Ã©tÃ© . Elle en dÃ©duit que certains au moins des soldats de garde Ã ce moment ont dissinulÃ© ce qui s'Ã©tait passÃ© . Cette dissimulation a eu pour consÃ©quence de priver les autoritÃ©s de tÃ©moignages prÃ©cieux qui auraient pu servir pour la poursuite des responsables . En l'occurrence, les seuls tÃ©moignages directs Ã charge prÃ©sentÃ© s au procÃ¨s de M ., B . et C ., et concernant les auteurs de brutalitÃ©s, ont Ã©tÃ© ceux des trois requÃ©rants .
I .a Commission note aussi qu'il est incontestÃ© qu e M . McBride a subi des prÃ©judices corporels, Ã savoir deux yeux tumÃ©fias et une lÃ¨vre enflÃ©e, pendant qu'il Ã©tait dÃ©tenu dans 1e commissariat de police . Aucun policier dont le tÃ©moignage a Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã la Commission n'a reconnu avoir vu ces dommages corporels, ou n'a expliquÃ© de quelle maniÃ¨re ils avaient Ã©tÃ© subis, encore que certains tÃ©moins aient dÃ©clarÃ© que M . McBride avait les yeux rouges ou enflÃ©s d'avoir pleurÃ© . Cela n'explique pas Ã quel moment et de quelle maniÃ¨re les prÃ©judices corporels ont Ã©tÃ© subis . Les seules personnes Ã avoir reconnu devant l'enquÃ©teur qu'ils avaient constatÃ© que M . McBride Ã©tait blessÃ© sont de~x officiers qui n'avaient pas eu affaire Ã ce dernier pendant sa d=tention . La Commission ne peut qu'en dÃ©duire que certains policiers ont dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©ment cachÃ© des renseignements, tant Ã elle-mÃ¨me qu'Ã l'enquÃ©teur . Il n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© sÃ©rieusement prÃ©tendu qae les blessures de M . McBride aient pu rÃ©sulter d'autre cr,ose que des brutalitÃ©s qu'il avait subies pendant qu'il se trouvait dÃ©tenu par la police, et aucun Ã©lÃ©ment de preuve prÃ©sentÃ© Ã la Commission ne permet de soutenir une autre explication . On doit en conclure que le refus des policiers ,
- 160 -
qui ont eu affaire au requÃ©rant, :de donner des renseignements sur ces blessures a eu pour effet de priver les autoritÃ©s d'Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve qui auraient Ã©tÃ© prÃ©cieux et pertinents pour la poursuite des responsables . Cette solidaritÃ© entre les membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© qui ont Ã©tÃ© impliquÃ©s dans les brutalitÃ©s infligÃ©es Ã une personne arrÃ©tÃ©e ou qui ont eu connaissance de ces brutalitÃ©s a oour effet de rÃ©duire ou mÃ©me d'anÃ©antir les chances de succÃ¨s d'une action pÃ©nale ou disciplinaire contre les personnes responsables . Dans toute procÃ©dure, l'identification des personnes responsables dÃ©pend probablement du seul tÃ©moignage de l'individu arrÃªtÃ© et, come dans le cas d e MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, du tÃ©moignage d'autres individus se trouvant dans la mÃªme situation . Dans ce cas, la dÃ©fense a peut-Ã©tre intÃ©rÃ©t Ã mettre en doute la moralitÃ© des tÃ©moins Ã charge, comme cela a Ã©tÃ© fait lors du procÃ¨s de M ., B . et C ., tout en apportant, par ailleurs, des preuves de la bonne moralitÃ© antÃ©rieure des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© qui sont accusÃ©s . Dee tÃ©moignages apportÃ©s par d'autrea membres dea forces de sÃ©curitÃ© sur l'identitÃ© des responsables peuvent Ã©tre dÃ©terminants dans ces circonstances . Dans les procÃ©dures civiles, la situation est diffâ¬rente . En effet, le demandeur n'est pas tenu de prouver, dansune action contre la Couronne ou le Commissaire principal, l'identitÃ© de l'individu ou des individus qui l'ont brutalisÃ© . S'il est possible, Ã l'intÃ©rieur d'un poste militaire ou d'un commissariat de police dÃ©terminÃ©, de parvenir Ã cacher l'identitÃ© dee auteurs de brutalitÃ©s, il est beaucoup plus difficile, Ã©tant donnÃ© les pratiques suivies en Irlande du Nord, de dissimuler le fait que des brutalitÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©es , tout au moins si elles ont causÃ© des prÃ©judices corporels . Ainsi, les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy ont Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©s par un mÃ©decin de la police aprÃ¨s leur transfert au commissariat, et aprÃ©s qu'ils s'Ã©taient plaints de mauvais traitements auprÃ¨s d'un policier de ce commissariat . Ce mÃ©decin a c~nsignÃ© ses observations par Ã©crit . Les requÃ©rants ont pu Ã©tre examinÃ©s, le lendemain, par un mÃ©decin appelÃ© par leur propre solicitor, et un photographe a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã prendre des photos de leurs blessures . AprÃ©s leur !ncarcÃ©ration, ils ont Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©s par le mÃ©decin de l'Ã©tablissement qui avait Ã©tÃ© spÃ©cialement appelÃ©, et qui a pris des notes succinctes sur les blessures qu'il avait observÃ©es, et a organisÃ© leur hospitalisation . Ils ont ensuite Ã©tÃ© soignÃ©s par des membres du personnel mÃ©dical de l'armÃ©e . Le mÃ©decin qui s'est occup Ã© d'eux a pris minutieusement note de leurs blessures . A son transfert en prison, M . McBride a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© par un mÃ©decin de l'Ã©tablissement qui a pris des notes succinctes sur les blessures qu'il a constatÃ©es et a enregistrÃ© la dÃ©claration de M . McBride selon laquelle celui-ci avait Ã©tÃ© "frappÃ© Ã coups de poing" . Il n'est pas allÃ©guÃ© que M . McBride ait subi d'autres prÃ©judices corporels que ceux que ce mÃ©decin a dÃ©crits dans ses notes . Il ressort aussi des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuv e
- 161 -
que l'aumÃ´nier de la prison dans laquelle MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy et McBride avaient tous Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ©s, se faisait une rÃ¨gle d'enregistrer les plaintes des nouveaux arrivants pour mauvais traitements infligÃ©es par ~es forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . C'Ã©tait lÃ une question qui lui tenait beaucoup 3 coeur et il faisait le nÃ©cessaire pour porter ces plaintes Ã l'attention des autoritÃ©s . ' A la lumiÃ¨re des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve, et particuliPrement des rÃ©sultats des examens mÃ©dicaux rÃ©alisÃ©s avec l'accord des autoritÃ©s, la Commission conclut que la pratique des autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures n'a pas consistÃ© Ã dissimuler le fait que des personnes avaient subi des prÃ©judices corporels en prison , mais plutbt Ã prendre note de ces prÃ©judices corporels, Ã soigner les intÃ©ressÃ©s si nÃ©cessaire, et Ã permettre Ã ces personnes de se faire examiner par des mÃ©decins indÃ©pendants . La suppression de preuve a Ã©tÃ© le fait de personnes qui se trouvaient dans le poste militaire et dans le commissariat de police en question . Les requÃ©rants font valoir que le rÃ¨glement amiable intervenu, en particulier, dans le cas de M . McBride doit Ã©tre envisagÃ© dans le contexte des difficultÃ©s que ce requÃ©rant aurait rencontrÃ©es pour plaider son cas, face aux Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve produits par la police et dÃ©mentant qu'il eut Ã©tÃ© mal traitÃ© . Ils indiquent, par ailleurs, que les mÃªmes facteurs s'appliqueraient, encore que dans une moindre mesure, aux cas de 'â¢1M . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy . S'i1 faut reconnaitre qu'une manoeuvre de dissimulation de la part des personnes prÃ©sentes, Dutre qu'elle a entravÃ© les procÃ©dures pÃ©nales disciplinaires, a pu nÃ©cessairement aboutir Ã priver l'individu brutalisÃ© d'Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve utiles Ã une action civile, la Commission n'estime pas Ã©tabli, dans le cas de MM . Donnelly, Bradley, Duffy et McBride, que ces facteurs aient notablement influÃ© sur leurs chances de succÃ¨s, compte tenu des autres Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve dont ils disposaient . De toute faÃ§on, il appartient aux tribunaux internes de mettre dans la balance les moyens de preuve produits par les requÃ©rants intÃ©ressÃ©s et ceux produits par les membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ©, en tenant compte des autres preuves disponibles . En ce qui concerne lerequÃ©rant Carlin, la Commission note qu'un mÃ©decin a Ã©tÃ© appelÃ©, Ã sa demande, pour venir l'examiner au commissariat de police "B", aprÃ¨s les mauvais traitements qu'il prÃ©tend avoir subis au commissariat de police "A", et qu'il a passÃ© un examen mÃ©dical au dÃ©but et Ã la fin de sa dÃ©tention dans le centre de la police . En outre, il a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© Ã son arrivÃ©e Ã Long Nesh, et plus tard encore, par un mÃ©decin extÃ©rieur Ã l'Ã©tablissement . Chacu n de ces mÃ©decins a consignÃ© par Ã©crit ses observations . On dispose donc, pour chaque Ã©tape importante de la pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention de M . Carlin, de rapports d'expertise mÃ©dicale . Bien qu'on ait laissÃ© enten,re lors des dÃ©positions que les mÃ©decins qui l'ont examinÃ© au commissariat de police "B" et au centre de dÃ©tention devaient en avoir vu davantage qj'ils n'ont notÃ© ,
162 -
la Commission constate que les dÃ©positions des mÃ©decins, considÃ©rÃ©es globalement, forment un tout cohÃ©rent, et qu'il n'y a pas de raison de penser queles observations enregistrÃ©es par les divers mÃ©decins ne soient pas fondamentalement exactes . Par consÃ©quent, la Commission conclut que s'il y a eu dissimulation de certains faits, celle-ci ne peut Ã©tre imputable qu'aux policiers prÃ©sents au moment des faits . En outre, il existe des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve objectifs permettant Ã un tribunal interne de juger de la vraisemblance de la versio n de M . Carlin . Le tribunal interne a pour mission notamment de juger de la vraisemblance de la version des faits donnÃ©s par M . Carlin, Ã la lumiÃ¨re des tÃ©moignages des mÃ©decins, et au regard de la version donnÃ©e par la police . Il n'y a aucune raison de penser que les juridictions internes pourraient accepter la version des Ã©vÃ©nements donnÃ©s par la police sans prendre dÃ»ment en considÃ©ration sa valeur et d'autres Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve . La Commission estime donc que, mÃ©me en admettant qu'il y ait eu dissimulation de certains faits, il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli que cette manoeuvre ait Ã©tÃ© d'une nature ou d'une ampleur telle qu'elle a empÃªchÃ© les tribunaux internes de statuer efficacement sur la demande en rÃ©paration de M . Carlin . S'agissant des requÃ©rante Kelly et Kearns, la Commissio n observe que, comme dans le cas de M . Carlin, la pratique des autoritÃ©s consistant Ã permettre que les dÃ©tenus passent un examen mÃ©dical, et Ã organiser e11es-mÃ©mes cet examen, a permis de disposer de renseignements mÃ©dicaux sur leur Ã©tat peu de temps aprÃ¨s qu'ils eurent Ã©tÃ© prÃ©tendument soumis Ã des mauvais traitements . En consÃ©quence, elle conclut que mÃ©me si l'on admet qu'il y ait eu aussi dissimulation dans ces affaires, il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli que cette dissimulation a Ã©tÃ© d'une nature ou d'une ampleur telle qu'elle a empÃ©chÃ© les tribunaux internes de statuer efficacement sur les demandes en indemnisation . Les requÃ©rants font valoir, d'autre part, que la grande majoritÃ© des indemnitÃ©s versÃ©es en Irlande du Nord prennent la forme de versements Ã titre gracieux en marge de la loi, systÃ¨me par lequel le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur s'efforce d'Ã©viter que les cas importants de mauvais traitements fassent l'objet d'enquÃªtes . Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã la dÃ©cision de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te nÂ° .299/57, GrÃ¨ce contre Royaume-Uni (Annuaire 2, p . 187) (la seconde Affaire de Chypre), ils soutiennent qu'il ressort clairement de la jurisprudence de la Commission que les rÃ©parations de caractÃ¨re gracieux ou laissÃ©es Ã la discrÃ©tion du pouvoir exÃ©cutif ne reprÃ©sentent pas des recours efficaces et suffisants dont l'article 26 exigerait l'exercice . I1 est vrai que dans l'affaire citÃ©e par les requÃ©rants, la Commission a jugÃ© qu'une demande en rÃ©paration de mauvais traitements adressÃ©e par requÃ©te Ã la Reine ou au Gouvernement de Chypre n'appartenait pas, vu son caractÃ¨re gracieux, aux recours dont l'article 26 exige l'exercice . 7ans leurs actions devant les tribunaux internes, les prÃ©sents requÃ©rants cherchen t
163 -
Ã obtenir rÃ©paration non Ã titre gracieux mais de plein droit . S'ils parvenaient Ã prouver devant les tribunaux internes leurs allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements, ne serait-ce que partiellement, ils seraient habilitÃ©s, en droit, Ã recevoir rÃ©paration . Dans ces conditions, une offre de rÃ¨glement amiable n e reprÃ©sente pas une offre gracieuse, mais une offre visant Ã satisfaire une prÃ©tention en droit . Il est vrai qu'une offre peut Ã©tre faite sans reconnaissance de responsabilitÃ©, comme cela a Ã©tÃ© le cas pour le requÃ©rant McBride . Toutefois, il est loisible au plaignant de refuser cette offre, s'il attache suffisamment d'importance Ã une reconnaissance de responsabilitÃ©, encore que la Commission admette que s'i1 ne rÃ©ussit pas ultÃ©rieurement Ã obtenir une indemnitÃ© pÃ©cuniaire plus Ã©levÃ©e que celle offerte, il pourra alors Ã©tre tenu de supporter les frais de justice Ã compter de la date de l'offre . Toutefois ,
si un demandeur accepte une offre de rÃ¨glement amiable, i l 'acept comefaisntdroitpleinm tÃ lademn qu'il a prÃ©sentÃ©e et il renonce de son plein grÃ© Ã son droit de demander aux tribunaux d'examiner et de trancher les questions de responsabilitÃ© et de fixer le montant des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts . Le fait qu'une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts fasse, avant jugement, l'objet d'un rSglement amiable entre les parties ne peut avoir pour effet, selon la Commission, de transformer cette action en recours inefficace ou insuffisant . Pour ces motifs, la Commission estime que les requÃ©rant s n'ont pas dÃ©montrÃ© que le systÃ©me d'indemnisation n'avait pas fonctionnÃ©, ou avait peu de chances de fonctionner efficacement dans la pratique . Il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© au contraire que ce systÃ¨me avait fonctionnÃ© efficacement dans le cas des requÃ©rants Donnelly, Duffy, Bradley et McBride, qui ont reÃ§u chacun, dans le cadre d'un rÃ¨glement amiable intervenu avant jugement de deux actions, une indemnitÃ© pÃ©cuniaire d'un montant raisonnablement proportionnÃ©, semble-t-il, aux prÃ©judices corporels qu'ils avaient subis . Dans ce contexte, la Commission observe aussi que, dan s
le cas de MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy, les sommea versÃ©es ont Ã©tÃ© importantes, et qu'il n'est pas contestÃ© qu'elles englobaient des dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts "punitifs", sous la forme de dommages-irtÃ©rÃ©ts "majorÃ©s" et "exemplaires" . LE CARACTERE ADEQUAT DE L'INDEMNISATION EN TANT QUE RE A A AFFAIRE S Les requÃ©rants font nÃ©anmoins valoir que l'indemnisation n'a pas reprÃ©sentÃ© une rÃ©paration adÃ©quate dans les circonstances rÃ©gnant en Irlande du Nord . Ils allÃ¨guent que chacun d'entr e
eux, outre qu'il a Ã©tÃ© victime d'actes particuliers de mauvais traitements contraires Ã l'article 3, a aussi Ã©tÃ© victime d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã cet article . Cette pratique administrative aboutit nÃ©cessairement, selon eux, Ã rendr e les voies de recours internes inefficaces et insuffisantes et, en particulier, Ã rendre insuffisante l'indemnisation envisagÃ« e
- 164 -
comme rÃ©paration, Ã©tant donnÃ© quele systÃ¨me d'indemnisation et le systÃ¨me judiciaire normal ne permettent pas d'empÃªcher les comportements incriminÃ©s . Lorsque cette pratique existe, la rÃ©paration sous forme de dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts n'assure pas de faÃ§on adÃ©quate, selon les requÃ©rants, la protection des droits de l'individu garantis par la Convention . Ils font observer que l'article 3 de la Convention ne peut pas subi r de dÃ©rogations et soutiennent que lorsqu'il existe une pratique administrative, un Etat ne peut pas prÃ©tendre qu'il satisfait aux dispositions de 1'article 3 en se contentant de montrer qu'il y a des possibilitÃ©s d'indemnisation . Selon eux, un Etat ne devrait pas pouvoir monnayer le droit de torturer ou de violer de quelque autre maniÃ¨re l'article 3 . Ils font valoir, par ailleurs, que les indemnitÃ©s versÃ©es sont purement et simplement considÃ©rÃ©es comme le coÃ»t nÃ©cessaire des mesures appliquÃ©ee par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur en Irlande du Nord . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur nie qu'il y ait eu une quelconque pratique administrative contraire A l'article 3 en Irlande du Nord Ã l'â¬poque des faits, et soutient que les Ã©lÃ©mente de preuves produite en l'eepÃ©ce montrent que les requÃ©rante n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une quelconque pratique administrative . Il estime que la thÃ¨se des requÃ©rants selon laquelle en versant des indemnitÃ«s, l'Etat monnayerait le droit de torturer, dÃ©forme complÃ¨tement les faits et les cohcepts pertinents de la Convention . A cet Ã©gard, il soutient que la fonction de l'Etat au regard de la Convention consiste Ã garantir les droits et libertÃ©s Ã©noncÃ©s dans la Convention et Ã rÃ©parer toute raille dans la garantie de ces droite, en accordant une restitutio in inte rum ou, lorsque cela n'est pas possible, en accor an r paration sous la forme d'une indemnitÃ© . Il admet que dans une situation comme celle de l'Irlande du Nord, il est inÃ©vitable que certÃ¢ins membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© dÃ©passent les bornes de ce qui est permi s
et se livrent Ã des brutalitÃ©s ; mais il affirme qu'il satisfait Ã¢ ses obligations dÃ©coulant de la Convention en versant des indemnitÃ«s dans ces cas . La Commission observe qu'aux termes de la Convention, un Etat est tenu de ne pas violer les droits et libertÃ©s qui y sont Ã©noncÃ©s et qu'il est Ã©galement tenu, en vertu de l'article 13 . de garantir aux particuliers un recours efficace en cas de violation de leurs droits et libertÃ©s . Lorsqu'un Etat prend des mesures raisonnables pour satisfaire Ã ses obligations dÃ©coulant de l'article 3 de la Convention, mais qu'un traitement contraire Ã celui-ci se produit nÃ©anmoins, la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir une indemnitÃ© reprÃ©sente gÃ©nÃ©ralement, selon la Commission, une rÃ©paration adÃ©quate, car elle constitue probablement le seul moyen de dÃ©dommager l'individu du tor t qui lui a Ã©tÃ© causÃ© . Lorsque la victime obtient une rÃ©paration adÃ©quate, il en rÃ©sulte au regard de la Convention, comme la Commieeion l'a dÃ©jÃ fait observer, que la violation est rÃ©putÃ©e avoir Ã©tÃ© redressÃ©e et que la victime ne peut plus prÃ©tendre Ã©tre victime d'une violation, au sens de l'article 2 5 â¢
- 165 -
D'un autre c8tÃ©, l'indemnisation ne pourrait pas, aux yeux de la Commission, Ã©tre rÃ©putÃ©e avoir portÃ© remÃ¨de d une violation dans le cas oÃ¹ l'Etat n'aurait pas pris des mesures raisonnables pour satisfaire Ã ses obligations dÃ©coulant de l'article 3 . L'obligation d'accorder rÃ©paration ne se substitue pas et ne constitue pas une solution de rechange Ã ces obligations ; en fait, c'est une obligation de rÃ©parer, dans le cadre du systÃ¨me interne, les violations qui, inÃ©vitablement, peuvent se produire en dÃ©pit des meeures prises pour assure r le respect des dispositions fondamentales de l'article 3 . Ainsi, si le comportement contraire Ã l'article 3 est autorisÃ© par le droit interne et que la loi prÃ©voit par ailleurs le versement d'une indemnitÃ© aux victimes de ce comportement, cette indemnisation ne constituerait pas une rÃ©paration pouvant Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme ayant redressÃ« la violation de l'article 3 . De mÃ©me, si les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures de l'Etat ont une politique ou une pratique administrative consistant Ã autoriser ou tolÃ©rer des comportements contraires Ã l'article 3, une indemnisatio n ne constituerait pas par elle-mÃ©me une rÃ©paration suffisante . La protection accordÃ©e par l'article 3 de la Convention est, comme les requÃ©rants l'ont soulignÃ©, une protection absolue et un Etat ne peut Ã©chapper Ã ses obligations dÃ©coulant de la Convention en se bornant Ã verser une indemnitÃ© . Le mÃ©canisme d'indemnisation ne peut reprÃ©senter un recours adÃ©quat que lorsque les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures ont pris des mesures'raisonnables pour satisfaire Ã leurs obligations dÃ©coulant de l'article 3, en empÃ©chant dans toute la mesure du possible la commission des actes en question ou leur rÃ©pÃ©tition . Les requÃ©rants ayant allÃ©guÃ© qu'ils ont chacun Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3, et au vu des moyens de preuves qu'ils ont produits Ã l'appui de leurs allÃ«gations, la Commission juge utile d'examiner les mesures qui ont Ã©tÃ© prises par les autoritÃ©s pour empÃ©cher la commission des actes incriminÃ©s ou leur rÃ©pÃ©tition, ceci afin de rechercher si une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme un recours suffisant pour porter remÃ¨de aux violations de l'article 3 allÃ©guÃ©es par chacun des requÃ©rants . Il n'est pas contestÃ© que des mauvais traitements comme ceux qui sont allÃ©guÃ©s par chacun des requÃ©rants sont contraires au droit interne et sont constitutifs tout Ã la fois d'une infraction pÃ©nale et, en droit civil, d'un acte illicite engageant la responsabilitÃ© de leurs auteurs . De mÃ©me, il n'est pas contestÃ© que ces mauvais traitements ont Ã©tÃ© contrairee aux ordres de service diffusÃ©s aux forces de sÃ©curitÃ© et en vigueu r Ã l'Ã©poque des faits, ordres qui ont Ã©tÃ© rÃ©itÃ©rÃ©s et rendus plus stricts vers la fin du mois d'avril 1972 et postÃ©rieurement . De plus, il convient de noter que les requÃ©rants ont admis qu'aux Ã©chelons les plus Ã©levÃ©s de l'Etat, on ne souhaite peut-Ã©tre pas que les suspects soient traitÃ©s d'une maniÃ¨re contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . Ils affirment s
nÃ©anmoins que de mauvais traitements ont Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©s aux suspect s
- i66 -
sur une grande Ã©chelle et qu'Ã l'Ã©chelon intermÃ©diaire de la hiÃ©rarchie, certaines personnes ont d0 avoir connaissance de ces mauvais traitements et les tolÃ©rer . Ils prÃ©tendeht que la tolÃ©rance, ou plut6t 1'indiffÃ©rence, des autoritÃ©s gouvernementales face aux allÃ©gations rÃ©it~rÃ©es de mauvais traitements a Ã©tÃ© manifeste Ã l'Ã©poque des faits . AprÃ¨s examen des moyens de preuve, la Commission estime toutefois qu'il n'en ressort pas que les requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une politique ou d'une pratique administrative de mauvais traitements tolÃ©rÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures, ce qui aurait pu avoir pour effet de rendre l'indemnisation insuffisante en tant que rÃ©paration des torts soufferts, mais qu'i1 en ressort au contraire que les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures ne se sont pas montrÃ©es indiffÃ©rentes Ã leurs allÃ©gations . En premier lieu, la Commission observe que les allÃ©gations formulÃ©espar chacun des requÃ©rants ont fait l'objet d'enquÃ©tes dans des dÃ©lais raisonnables, lorsqu'elles sont parvenues Ã la connaissance des autoritÃ©s . Sur les sept requÃ©rants, trois seulement ont coopÃ©rÃ© avec le policier enquÃ©teur en lui indiquant ce qui, selon eux, s'Ã©tait passâ¬ . Pour diverses raisons, les autres requÃ©rants ont refusÃ© de coopÃ©rer . Aucune dÃ©claration de l'agent qui a enquÃ©tÃ© sur les plaintes de MM . Donnelly, Bradley et Duffy n'a Ã©tÃ© soumise Ã la Commission . Toutefois, il ressort des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve disponibles qu'une enquÃ©te a Ã©tÃ© ouverte peu de jours aprÃ¨s qu'ils eurent Ã«tÃ© brutalisÃ©s, puis qu'Ã¢ cette Ã©poque un membre de la "Section spÃ©ciale d'investigation" de la Police militaire royale a demandÃ© l'autorisation de s'entretenir avec certains des soldats au sujet de l'incident . Les dÃ©clarations des trois requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© recueillies dans le bureau de leur solicitor, Ã Belfaet, Ã diffÃ©rentes dates du mois de juin 1972, peu aprÃ¨s leur libÃ©ration . Chacun des requÃ©rants a reconnu qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© de faÃ§on minutieuse et approfondie . Cela est confirmÃ© par le contenu mÃªme des dÃ©clarations qui ont Ã©tÃ© soumises Ã la Commission . UltÃ©rieurement, sur la base des dÃ©clarations recueillies, M ., B . et C ., qui avaient Ã©tÃ© nommÃ©ment dÃ©signÃ© s ou dÃ©crits par un ou plusieurs des requÃ©rants, ont Ã©tÃ© poursuivis . La Commission a examinÃ© le compte rendu du procÃ¨s de M ., B . et C . et a constatÃ© que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve disponibles y Ã©taient prÃ©sentÃ©s de maniÃ¨re complPte et Ã©quitable . Par suite du refus manifeste des personnes prÃ©sentes dans le poste militaire Ã l'Ã©poque des faits de coopÃ©rer avec l'enquÃ©teur, les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve qui auraient permis d'identifier les auteurs des brutalitÃ©s se limitaient, comme la Commission l'a observÃ©, Ã ceux produits par les trois requÃ©rants eux-mÃ©mes . Il n'est pas possible de dÃ©terminer les motifs de l'acquittement de M ., B . et C . prononcÃ© par le jury . Il est impossible d'exclure que l'acquittement soit rÃ©eultÃ© de manoeuvres de dissimulation de la part de membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ou encore,comme il a Ã©tÃ© suggÃ©rÃ©, de la partislitÃ© du jury . Toutefois, la Commission n'estime pas qu e
cet acquittement puisse Ã©tre attribuÃ© Ã quelque carence de s
- 167 -
des responsables de la conduite de l'enquÃ©te et des poursuites . La Commission note, au surplus, que les cliarges retenues contre les trois accusÃ©s Ã©taient sÃ©rieuses, puisqu'ils Ã©taient inculpÃ©s d'avoir infligÃ© de graves prÃ©judices corporels aux troi s requÃ©rants dans le cas de M . et de B ., et Ã M . Duffy seulement dans le cas de C . Le fait que des poursuites soient intentÃ©es peut, Ã©tant donnÃ© la possibilitÃ© de consÃ©quences sÃ©rieuses pour les accusÃ©s, dissuader dans une certaine mesure les membre s des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© de brutaliser les personnes qu'ils .iÃ©tiennent . Des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve dÃ©taillÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© produits au sujet de l'enquÃ©te effectuÃ©e sur la plainte de M . Carlin . Cette plainte a Ã©tÃ© portÃ©e directement Ã la connaissance du Cabinet du Ministre et un enquÃªteur a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©signÃ© par le Commissaire principal trois jours plus tard . L'enquÃ©teur a tentÃ© de prendre contact avec M . Carlin, qui s'est refusÃ© Ã le voir et Ã coopÃ©rer avec lui . De ce fait, l'enquÃ©teur n'a eu connaiesance des plaintes de M . Carlin, et en particulier de l'identitÃ© des individus dont celui-ci prÃ©tendait qu'ils l'avaient maltraitÃ©, qu'au travers d'articles de presse et de ce qui figurait dans l'unique dÃ©position dont il disposait . Au vu des dÃ©clarations de M . Carlin, des policiers prÃ©sents Ã l'Ã©poque des faits ainsi que de l'enquÃ©teur lui-mÃ©me, la Commission estime que l'enquÃ©te prÃªte Ã la critique sur certaine points . L'enquÃ©teur n'a pas relevÃ© la prÃ©sence dans le centre de dÃ©tention de la police de deux agents de la "Section spÃ«ciale", du fait, semble-t-il, qu'i1 n'a pas vÃ©rifiÃ© les procÃ¨s-verbaux pertinents . Il n'a pas, semble-t-il, rendu compte du fait qu'on n'avait pas gardÃ© trace des conversations que deux autres agents de le "Section spÃ©ciale" avaient eues avec M . Carlin ; et .il ne s'est pas renseignÃ© assez soigneusement, selon la Commission, sur les contacts entr e
M . Carlin et ces deux agents . En outre, la Commission considÃ¨re qu'il n'a pas prÃ©tÃ© suffisamment d'attention Ã la suggestion tendant Ã expliquer certains prÃ©judices corporels subis pa r M . Carlin par la prÃ©sence d'une agrafe dÃ©couverte dans sa cellule . Nonobstant ces lacunes, la Commission note qu'un temps trÃ¨s long a Ã©tÃ© consacrÃ©, Ã une Ã©poque oÃ¹ la police en Irlande du Nord avait Ã©normÃ©ment de travail, Ã enquÃ©ter sur une plainte extrÃ©mement vague quant aux dÃ©tails et qui Ã©tait dirigÃ©e contre des personnes pratiquement non identifiÃ©es . A l'exception de la conclusion selon laquelle les Ã©raflures constatÃ©es sur les mains de M . Carlin avaient Ã©tÃ© volontairement provoquÃ©es par celui-ci, conclusion que la Commission estime insuffisamment Ã©tayÃ©e, la Commission ne considÃ¨re pas que les conclusions de l'enquÃªteur aient Ã©tÃ© injustifiÃ©es, compte tenu des informations dont il disposait . L'enquÃ©te sur les allÃ©gations de M . McBride a Ã©tÃ© ouverte Ã la suite des plaintes formulÃ©es par son solicitor lors d'une audience de renvoi en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Un enquÃ©teu r
- i68 -
a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©signÃ© cinq jours plus tard, mais lorsqu'il est apparu que des officiers supÃ©rieurs en grade Ã cet enquÃªteur Ã©taient visÃ©s par la plainte, un autre officier supÃ©rieur en grad e a Ã©tÃ© nommÃ© . Il a pris en charge l'enquÃªte environ trois eemaines plus tard . M . McBride a refusÃ© de coopÃ©rer avec aucun des deux enquÃ©teurs . NÃ©anmoins, sur l'ordre du Commissaire principal, une enquÃªte a Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©e sur les allÃ©gations de M . McBride . L'enquÃªteur a dG fonder son enquÃ©te sur un article de s "Irish News", du 29 avril 1972, rendant compte des allÃ©gations formulÃ©es par le solicitor de M . McBride devant le tribunal, sur une dÃ©claration faite par M . McBride Ã l'aumonier de la prison peu de temps aprÃ¨s son incarcÃ©ration, et sur une brÃ¨ve dÃ©claration de l'aumonier lui-mÃ©me . La Commission est d'avis que l'enquÃªte menÃ©e par le responsable a Ã©tÃ© approfondie . Des dÃ©clarations ont Ã©tÃ© recueillies auprÃ¨s de tous les policiers qui Ã©taient de service au moment des faite et, sur la base de ces dÃ«clarations et d'autres Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve, l'enquÃ©teur a reconstituÃ© dans le dÃ©tail les Ã©vÃ©nements survenus pendant ladÃ©tention d e
M . MeBride, reconstitution qui concorde pour l'essentiel avec la version des faits donnÃ©e par M . McBride lui-mÃ©me lors de sa dÃ©position devant la Commission . I1 a aussi Ã©tabli qu e M . McBride avait reÃ§u des blessures aux yeux et aux lÃ¨vres pendant qu'il Ã©tait dÃ©tenu .au commissariat de police . Le seul point crucial qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© en mesure d'â¬lucidera Ã©tÃ© celui de savoir Ã quelle Ã©poque et de quelle maniÃ©re ces prÃ©judices corporels avaient Ã©tÃ© causÃ©e, tous les agents en service au moment des faits ayant niÃ© avoir eu connaiseance de ces blessures . Lorsque M . McBride a reconnu devant le tribunal Ã©tre coupable de certaines infractions au sujet desquelles il avait Ã©tÃ© interrogÃ© au commissariat de police, sans rÃ«itÃ©rer ses allÃ©gations de mauvais traitements, l'enquÃ©teur a finalement recommandÃ© dans son rapport de ne prendre aucune autre mesure .
La Commission estime qu'Ã©tant donnÃ© les Ã©lÃ©ments dont disposait l'enquÃ©teur, les conclusions de celui-ci, dans la mesure oÃ elles indiquent qu'iâ¢1 n'a pas Ã©tÃ© en mesure de prÃ©ciser la ou les personnes qui avaient causÃ© les dommagee corporels, n'Ã©taient pas injustifiÃ©es . Il est suggÃ©rÃ© par les requÃ©rants que des procÃ©dures pÃ©nales ou disciplinaires auraient pu, dans les circonstances, Ãªtre engagÃ©es contre un policier qui Ã©tait nommÃ©ment identifiÃ© dans la dÃ©claration comme ayant brutalisÃ© M . McBride . Avant d'engager une action pÃ©nale ou disciplinaire contre un individu, les autoritÃ©s responsables doivent, de toute Ã©vidence, apprÃ©cier sous l'angle qualitatif et quantitatif les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve qu'elles possÃ¨dent contre lui . La dÃ©claration de M . McBrid e est vague sur de nombreux points, et ce requÃ©rant n'a dÃ©cri t
- 169 -
ni l'agent ainsi nommÃ©, ni aucune autre personne susceptible de l'avoir brutalisÃ© . M . McBride s'est refusÃ© Ã prÃ©ciser sa dÃ©claration . Dans ces circonstances, la Commission ne tient pas pour dÃ©raisonnable que les autoritÃ©s aient jugÃ© que cette dÃ©claration ne conatituait pae une base adÃ©quate pour une action, inÃ©me compte tenu du fait que M . McBride avait sans aucun doute subi des prÃ©judices corporels . L'enquÃªte sur les allÃ«gations de MM . Kelly et Kearns a Ã©tÃ© ouverte deux jours aprÃ¨s la rÃ©ception par le Commandant divisionnaire local d'une lettre du solicitor des requÃ©rants . Les deux requÃ©rants ont refusÃ© de coopÃ©rer avec l'enquÃ©teur . La Commission constate toutefois qu'il n'apparait pas que des tentatives aient Ã©tÃ© faites pour obtenir des dÃ©tails par l'intermÃ©diaire du solicitor des requÃ©rants . Celui-ci ayant dÃ©posÃ© officiellement deux plaintes, la Commission pense qu'il aurait Ã©tÃ© prÃ©fÃ©rable de prendre coutact avec lui, car on ne pourrait pas exclure la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir des dÃ©clarations en sa prÃ©sence ou grÃ¢ce Ã sa coopÃ©ration . L'enquÃ©te, bien que prÃ©tant d'une certaine maniÃ¨re a la critique, parait avoir Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e de maniÃ¨re raisonnablement approfondie, l'enquÃ©teur ayant recueilli ou reÃ§u les dÃ©clarations de 44 policiers au total au cours d'une pÃ©riode de deux mois environ . Il a Ã©galement reÃ§u les dÃ©clarations d'un certain nombre de militaires et examinÃ© les aspects mÃ©dicaux des affaires . ConformÃ©ment Ã la pratique habituelle, les dÃ©clarations de militaires ont Ã©tÃ© recueillies par des membres de la police militaire . La Commission estime qu'i1 aurait peut-Ã©tre Ã©t s Ã©prfable-ticuÃ¨rmendaslcirontesd prÃ«sentes affaires oÃ¹ il est incontestÃ© que l'armÃ©e a eu recours Ã la force en procÃ©dant Ã des arrestations - que l'enquÃ©teur recueille lui-mÃªme les dÃ©clarations des militaires impliquÃ©s . Toutefois, il n'est pas possible de dire si l'enquÃªte a, en fait, Ã©tÃ© entravÃ©e par cette rÃ©partition des responsabilitÃ©s car n i
le compte rendu ni les dÃ©clarations initiales n'ont Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©es . La Commission note, en outre, que la conclusion de l'enquÃªteur, selon laquelle celui-ci n'a relevÃ© aucune preuve qu'un membre des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© ait brutalisÃ© Kearns et Kelly . . Ã©tait trop catÃ©gorique, si on la rapproche des certificats mÃ©dicaux attestant que les deux hommes avaient subi certains prÃ©judices corporels . La Commission observe enfin que les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve ne permettent pas de dire clairement si l'enquÃªte sur la prÃ©tendue administration de drogues aux deux hommes a Ã©tÃ© suffisamment approfondie, compte tenu de la gravitÃ© de cette allÃ©gation . Eu Ã©gard Ã l'ensemble des circonstances, la Commission ne considPre pas, toutefois, que la conclusion de _'enquÃ©teur relative Ã cette allÃ©gation puisse Ãªtre critiquÃ©e .
- 170 -
En dernier lieu, s'agissant des trois enquÃ©tes qu'elle a examinÃ©es en dÃ©tail, la Commission note qu'il n'apparait pas que les agents qui ont effectuÃ© cesenquÃ©tes aient appartenu Ã la SÃ»retÃ© nationale (Criminal InvÃ©srigation Department), en dÃ©pit du fait que ces enquÃªtes portaient sur des soupÃ§ons d'infractions pÃ©nales . Au moins deux .d'entre eux n'avaient jamais travaillÃ© pour la SGretÃ© nationale . Ceci Ã©tant, la Commieeion observe que chacun des agents qu'elle a entendus Ã©tait de rang Ã©levÃ© et avait une expÃ©rience des affaires pÃ©nales courantee, mais pas dans le cadre de la SOretÃ© nationale, ainsi que de la conduite d'enquÃ©tes Ã la suite de plaintes . ConsidÃ©rant l'ensemble des preuves rÃ©unies, la Commission conclut que les enquÃ©tes effectuÃ©es prÃ¨tent Ã la critique pour un certain nombre de raisons, comme il a Ã©tâ¬ dit, et qu'au moins certaines d'entre elles ont Ã©tÃ© incomplÃ¨tes . Beaucoup de temps et d'efforts ont nÃ©anmoins Ã©tÃ© consacrÃ© dans chaque cas Ã Ã©tablir la vÃ©ritÃ© ou la faussetÃ© des allÃ©gations des requÃ©rants, dans quatre cas malgrÃ© le refus des requÃ©rants de coopÃ©rer . Dans des circonstances oÃ¹ tous les membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© impliquÃ©s ont niÃ© avoir eu connaissance des faits allÃ©guÃ©s, ce refus de coopÃ©rer Ã eu pour effet de rendre impossible l'exercice de poursuites pÃ©nales ou disciplinaires . Il convient de noter aussi que ces enquÃªtes ont Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©es Ã une Ã©poque oÃ¹ les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© Ã©taient suroccupÃ©es et oÃ¹, semble-t-il, des allÃ©gations exagÃ©rÃ©es ou fausses Ã©taient souvent formulÃ©es Ã des fins de propagande . Dans les trois cas oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants ont coopÃ©rÃ©, les individus qu'ils avaient Ã©tÃ© en mesure d'identifier ont Ã©tÃ© poursuivis, en dÃ©pit du fait que toutes les personnes directement impliquÃ©es avaient niÃ© avoir eu connaissance de brutalitÃ©s sur la personne desrequÃ©rants . Le manque de confiance dans les enquÃ©tes policiÃ©res a ÃtÃ© invoquÃ© comme une des raisons possibles du refus dee quatre requÃ©rants de coopÃ©rer . La Commission considÃ¨re comme Ã©tabli, sur la base des tÃ©moignages qu'elle a entendus, qu'i1 y a eu, dans certains milieux tout au moins, un vÃ©ritable manque de confiance dans les procÃ©d t '.res d'enquÃªtes sur les plaintes . dirigÃ©es contre les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . I1 se peut que s'il avait existÃ© un systPme d'enquÃ©tes complÃ¨tement indÃ©pendant, une plus grande coopÃ©ration auraitâ¢Ã©tÃ© obtenue de la part des plaignants dans des affaires comme les prÃ©sentes . En outre , lorsque la police est directement attaquÃ©e, ~ omme c'Ã©tait l e
cas en Irlande du Nord, une enquÃªte effectuÃ©e par des membres de la police sur les allÃ©gations formulÃ©es contre ce corps rencontre inÃ©vitablement des difficultÃ©s et prÃ©te Ã la critique . On relPvera toutefois que deux seulement des quatre requÃ©rants qui n'on t pas coopÃ©rÃ© ont invoquÃ© le manque de confiance . La Commission juge que s'ils avaient souhaitÃ© qu'une suite soit donnÃ©e Ã leurs plaintes, ils auraient dÃ» coopÃ©rer de maniÃ¨re raisonnable aux dÃ©marches que les autoritÃ©s ont entreprises pour enquÃªter sur ces plaintes .
- 171 -
Examinant les mesures prises par les autoritÃ©s pour empÃ©cher la commission d'actes de mauvais traitements ou leur rÃ©pbtition, la Ccmmissiori a Ã©galement tenu compte du fait que des poursuites, encore que peu nombreuses, ont effectivement Ã©tÃ© intentÃ©es contre des membres des forces de sÃ©curitÃ© . foutefois, elle ne considÃ¨re pas que l'absence de poursuites dans quatre des prÃ©sentes affaires puisse Ã©tre imputÃ©e au fait que les autoritÃ©s responsables des poursuites n'ont pas agi Je maniÃ¨re raisonnable . Une autre protection rÃ©sidait dans le de dÃ©tention fait que les dÃ©tenus se trouvant dans les centres de la police ont passÃ© un examen mÃ©dical au dÃ©but et Ã la fin de leur dÃ©tention dans ces centres . Des visites de surveillance rÃ©guli,~res au centre dont il s'agit ici ont aussi Ã©tÃ© faites par l'officier resporisable . Il apparait toutefois qu'il se trouvait en congÃ© Ã l'Ã©poque des faits . Par ailleurs, la Commission a dÃ©jÃ soulignl.â¢ que les pr Ã© sents requÃ©rants ont tous pu passer des examens mÃ©dicaux pendant leur aÃ©tention . S'agissant des mesures qui ont Ã©tÃ© prises pour prÃ©venir les mauvais traitements, la Commiosion considÃ¨re qu'i1 n'a pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli que les mauvais traitements qui ont pu Ã©tre inl'ligÃ©s aux prÂ±sent .~ requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© approuvÃ©s ou tolÃ©rÃ©s pa r d'autres responsables que ceux qui ont eu directement affaire avec les requÃ©rants au moment des faits . Si les a1lÃgationsdes requÃ©rants sont exactes - et sur ce point la Commission n'adopte aucune concl~rsiorn sauf dans la mesure oÃ¹ elles ne sont pas contestÃ©es - il est Ã© vident que, dans chaque cas, il y a eu tol5rance et dissimulation de la part des personnes prÃ©sente s au moment des faits, qui ont dÃ» avoir connaissance de ce qui se passait . Pareille situation peut se prÃ©senter parfois dans des circonstances normales et risque plus encore de se produire dans une situation de guerre civile, od les forces de sÃ©curitÃ© sont directement attaquÃ©es . MÃ©me si les mauvais traitements se rÃ©pÃ¨tent, cela n'indique pas nÃ©cessairement que les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures les tolÃ¨rent . Une telle situation peut poser de graves problÃ¨mes aux autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures, mais si elles prennent des mesures raisonnables pour y faire face, elles ne peuvent pa s Ã©tre rÃ©putÃ©es l'avoir tolÃ©rÃ©e . Le fait que de mauvais traitements soient tolÃ©rÃ©s Ã l'Ã©chelon intermÃ©diaire ou infÃ©rieur de .la hiÃ©rarchie, par exemple au niveau de l'officier responsable d'un commissariat de police ou d'un poste militaire, n'implique pas nÃ©cessairement, selon la Commission, que l'Etat n'a pas pri s les mesures nÃ©cessaires pour satisfaire aux obligations concrÃ¨tes qui lui incombent aux termes de l'article 3 de la Convention . Les recours existants qui accordent une rÃ©paration aux victimes de mauvais traitements ne deviennent pas forcÃ©ment insuffisants en pareille situation .
La Commission estime que dans les circonstances des prÃ©sentes affaires, la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir rÃ©paration pa r la voie d'une action civile en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts constituait un recoure suffisant pour porter remÃ¨de aux violations spÃ©cifiques de la Convention allÃ©guÃ©es par chacun des requÃ©rants, si l'o n
- 172
-
tient compte des mesures prises parle Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur pour s'acquitter, vis-Ã -vis des requÃ©rants,de sa tÃ©che consistant A empÃªcher des actes tels que ceux qui ont Ã©tÃ© allÃ©guÃ©s ou leur rÃ©pÃ©tition . La Commission a dÃ©jÃ constatÃ© qu'il n'a pas Ã© tÃ© Ã©tabli dans les prÃ©sentes affaires que ce recours n'ait pas fonctionnÃ© efficacement en pratique . VI .
LA DEMANDE D'UNE REPARATION DE CARACTERE DECLARATOIRE
Dans leurs observations finales, les requÃ©rants font observer, toutefois, qu'ils n'ont pas demandÃ© une indemnitÃ© dans le cadre de la rÃ©paration sollicitÃ©e dans les prÃ©sentes requÃ©tes, et ils font valoir que leur demande en rÃ©paration de caractÃ¨re dÃ©claratoire, sous la forme d'une dÃ©claration affirmant que chacun d'entre eux a Ã©tÃ© victime d'actes spÃ©cifiques et d'une pratique administrative contraires Ã¨ l'article 3, est bel et bien soumise A la Commission, mime si une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃªts devait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme un recours efficace . Toutefois, un requÃ©rant qui agit en vertu de l'article 25 de la Convention ne peut pas demander Ã la Commission de se prononcer sur le bien-fondÃ© de sa requÃ©te, sauf Ã dire si elle est ou non manifestement mal fondÃ©e, s'il n'a pas satisfait Ã la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours sans avoir obtenu une rÃ©paration adÃ©quate .
VII .
CONSEQUENCES JURIDIQUES DES CONCLUSIONS AUXQUELLES LA COMMISSION S
Etant donnÃ© que les actions civiles intentÃ©es par le s requ6rants Carlin, Kelly et Kearns sont encore pendantes Ã la date de la prÃ©eente dÃ©cision, leurs requÃªtes, dans la mesure o Ã¹ ils allÃ¨guent avoir Ã© tÃ© victimes d'actes particuliers, distincts d'une pratique administrative, contrairee Ã l'article 3, doivent Ãªtre rejetÃ©es conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27 (3) de la Convention, pour non Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . De plus, les requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©tabli l'existence de circonstance s particuliÃ¨res qui les auraient relevÃ©s de l'obligation d'Ã©puiser ces recours . D'autre part, les requÃ©rants Donnelly, Bradley, Duff y et McBride ont obtenu rÃ©paration dans le cadre d'un rÃ¨glement amiable de leurs actions internes, intervenue avant jugement . Dans la mesure o Ã¹ les sommes versÃ©es ont Ã©tÃ©, semble-t-il, raisonnablement proportionnÃ©es Ã la gravitÃ© des prÃ©judices corporels subis et ont comportÃ©, dans trois cas au moins, un Ã©lÃ©ment "punitif" apprÃ©ciable, on peut dire que ces requÃ©rants, qui ont re Ã§ u une rÃ©paration raisonnable en exer Ã§ ant les voies de recours disponibles, ne peuvent plus prÃ©tendre Ã©tre victimes d'une quelconque violation de la Convention . Ces requÃ©tes, dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent avoir Ã©tÃ© victimes d'actes particuliers violant l'article 3, devraient donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27 (2) de la Convention .
- 173 -
Il est vrai que les requÃ©rants laissent enter.dre que les rÃ¨glements n,r.iaCles doivent Ã©tre en :,isagÃ©s dans le contexte des Ã©lÃ©ments de pre :ce qui auraient Ã©tÃ© disponib~es devant les tribunaux, et ils donnent Ã entendre, semble-t-il, que des difficultÃ©s sur le plan des preuves ont peut-Ã©tre incitÃ© au moins le requÃ©rant Mc2ride Ã accepter une somme plus faibl e que celle qu'il aurait obtenue autrement . La Commission relÃ¨ve que chacun de ces requÃ©rants a renoncÃ© Ã son droit de faire juger par un tribunal la question de responsabilitÃ© et a renoncÃ© pa r lÃ mÃ©me Ã la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir un jugement au fond en sa faveur . On peut donc dire, d'un autre cÃ´tÃ©, qu'en renonÃ§ant 3 la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir une rÃ©paration plus importante et un jugement au fontl, ces requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©puisÃ© les recours disponibles ; dans ce cas, leurs requÃ©tes, dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent avoir Ã©tÃ© victimes d'actes particuliers violant l'article 3, devraient Ã¨tre rejetÃ©es conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27 (3) . S e rÃ©fÃ©rant aux considÃ©rations qu'elle a dÃ©veloppÃ©es au sujet des t .5ches qui lui incombent Ã ce point de la procÃ©dure, !a Commission constate que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ la question de la recevabilitÃ© a Ã©tÃ© jointe au fond, elle doit maintenant Ãªtre cranch5e conformÃ©ment aux articles 26 et 27 par un vote ordinaire 3 la majoritÃ© . VIII . DECISIONS FOND E ES SUR LES ARTICLES 26 ET 2 7 Pour les motifs exposÃ©s ci-dessus,
la Commission
:
A . Dit que les requÃ©tes des requÃ©rants Carlin (nÂ° 5580/72), Ke11y (nÂ° 5582/72) et Kearns ( nÂ° 5583/72), dans la mesure oÃ¹ les cequerants allÃ¨guent avoir etÃ© victimes d'actes particuliers violant l'article 3 de la Convention, sont irrecevables pour non-Ã©puisement des .voies de recours internes, les requerants n'ayant pas Ã© tabli l'existence de circonstances particuliÃ¨res les relevant de l'obligation d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours disponibles ; B . Dit que les requÃ©tes des requÃ©rants Donnelly (nÂ° 5577/72) : Bradley (nÂ° 5578/72), DuÃfy (no 5579/72) et McBride ( nÂ° 5581/72), dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requerants allÃ¨guent av oÃ® r---6t Ã© victimes d'actes particuliers violant l'article 3 de la Convention, sont irrecevables pour le motif qu'ayant exercÃ© les recours internes disponibles, ils ont reÃ§u et acceptÃ© une indemnitÃ© et qu'il s ont, dans le cadre du rÃ¨glement amiable de leurs actions internes renoncÃ© Ã exercer d'autres recours internes . IX .
APP L ICATI07 DE L'ARTICLE 2 9
Dans sa premiÃ¨re dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© des prÃ©sentes requÃ¨tes, la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© recevable le grief des requÃ©rants selon lequelle ils ont Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une pratique administrative contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . La Commiss :on a dÃ©jÃ dÃ©fini les Ã©lÃ©ments ezsentiels d'une telle pratique, ces Ã©lÃ©ments consistant en 1 u rÃ©pÃ©tition des acte s
-
17u -
et en la tolÃ©rance officielle (voir Affaire grecque, Annuaire 12, pp . 196-197) . Elle a aussi observÃ© dans cette affaire que la notion est Ã©troitement liÃ©e au principe de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes (ibid ., p . 194), et a dÃ©clarÃ© que "lorsque dans la pra .ique certaines dispositions de la Convention ne sont pas :observÃ©es, les voies de recours prescrites sont nÃ©cessairement laissÃ©es de c5tÃ© ou rendues inefficaces . Si donc il y a une pratique administrative de tortures ou de mauvais traitements, les recours judiciaires prescrits tendent Ã devenir inefficaces du fait de la difficultÃ© de recueillir des preuves, et les enquÃ©tes administratives ou bien ne sont pas engagÃ©es ou, si elles le sont, risquent de se faire sans conviction et incomplÃ¨tement" . Il est vrai qu'une pratique administrative contraire Ã la Convention peut Ã©tre de nature telle que les recours internes disponibles deviennent inefficaces ou insuffisants . Cependant, toute pratique contraire Ã la Convention ne produit pas nÃ©cessairement cet effet . Ainsi, lorsqu'il n'est pas Ã©tabli que les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures de l'Etat tolÃ©rent des mauvais traitements, mais que la possibilitÃ© existe que les mauvais traitements aient Ã©tÃ© tolÃ©rÃ©s Ã l'Ã©chelon intermÃ©diaire ou infÃ©rieur de la hiÃ©rarchie, la Commission doit rechercher si, eu Ã©gard Ã des questions comme la difficultÃ© Ã©ventuelle de recueillir des preuves, les recours disponibles ont Ã©tÃ© ou non efficaces en pratique et si, compte tenu des mesures prises par les autoritÃ©s supÃ©rieures pour s'acquitter, vis-Ã -vis des individus concernÃ«s, de leur tÃ¢che consistant Ã empÃ©cher les actes de mauvais traitements ou leur rÃ©pÃ©tition, ces recours peuvent ou non Ã©treconsidÃ©rÃ©s comme suffisants . Dans les prÃ©sentes affaires, la Commission a dÃ©j8 examinÃ© les facteurs pertinents, A son avis, pour apprÃ©cier l'efficacitÃ© et le caractÃ©re suffisant des recours disponibles et elle a conclu que la possibilitÃ© d'obtenir rÃ©paration par la voi e d'une action civile constitue, en principe, un recours suffisant et efficace pour porter remÃ¨de aux violations de l'article 3 allÃ©guÃ©es par les requÃ©rants . Elle a aussi trouvÃ© qu'il n'Ã©tait pas Ã©tabli que ce recours ait Ã©tÃ© reridu inefficace ou insuffisant par l'effet d'une pratique administrative ou pour une autre raison . Cela ne signifie pas qu'une pratique contraire 9 la Convention n'ait pas pu existerÃ un certain endroit ou Ã¨ un certain niveau, mais la Commission ne juge pas nÃ©cessaire d'approfondir cette question car les mÃ©mes motifs d'irrecevabilitÃ© s'appliquent Ã cette partie de la requÃªte, tout comme aux allÃ©eations des requÃ©rants selon lesquelles ils ont chacun Ã©tÃ© victimes d'actes spÃ©cifiquee violant l'article 3 . Les dispositions des articles 26 et 27 s'appliquent Ã toutes les requÃ©tes introduites en vertu de l'article 25, qu'i1 soit ou non allÃ©guÃ© que la violation en question rÃ©sultait d'une pratique administrative . C'est seulement s'il avait Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli dans le s prÃ©sentes requÃ©tes que les recours existants ont Ã©tÃ© rendus inefficeces ou insuffisants, par l'effet d'une pratique administrative ou pour une autre cause,que les griefs des requÃ©rants selon lesquels ils ont â¬tÃ© victimes de violations, auraient pu Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©s comme recevables .
- 175 -
X.
DECISION FOtJDEE SUR L'ARTICLE 2 9
En raison de ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de, la Commission dit Ã l'unanimitÃ© que cette partie des requÃªtes doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e, conformâ¬ment Ã l'article 29 de la Convention, parce que les motifs d'irrecevabilitÃ© des griefs des requÃ©rants selon lesquels ils ont Ã©tÃ© victimes d'actes spÃ©cifiques contraires Ã
l'article ; de la Convention s'appliquent Ã©galement aux griefs selon lesquels ils ont Ã©tÃ© victimes d'une pratique administrative . Par ces motifs, la Commission
:
1 . ConformÃ©ment aux articles 26 et 27 de la Convention, DECLARE LES REQUETES IRRECEVABLES, pour autant que les requÃ©rant s alleguent avoir C . victlmes actes spÃ©cifiques contraire s
Ã
l'article 3
:
2 . ConformÃ©ment Ã l'article 29 de la Convention , REJETTE LES RF.QUETES Ã l'unanimitÃ©, pour autant qu'elles avaient ?te declarres recevables .
1 76 -

| DONNELLY et six autres c. ROYAUME-UNI

Synthèse

Analyses

Parties

Origine de la décision

Source