Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 14+5;Just satisfaction not applied

The tragic and lasting crisis in GPE lies at the root of the present case . In order to combat what the respondent Government describe as " the longest and most violent terrorist campaign witnessed in either part of the island of GPE " , the authorities in GPE exercised from DATE until DATE a series of extrajudicial powers of arrest , detention and internment . The proceedings in this case concern the scope and the operation in practice of those measures as well as the alleged ill - treatment of persons thereby deprived of their liberty .

Up to DATE , on the figures cited before the Commission by the respondent Government , CARDINAL people had been killed , CARDINAL injured and CARDINAL worth of property destroyed during the recent troubles in GPE . This violence found its expression in part in civil disorders , in part in terrorism , that is organised violence for political ends .

Prior to DATE the whole of the island of GPE formed part of GPE . In DATE , following a treaty of DATE , legislation was passed which endorsed the setting - up , with self - governing status within GPE , of ORG comprising initially all of the island ’s CARDINAL counties . Provision was made for CARDINAL of the CARDINAL counties of the province of GPE in the north to opt out and remain within GPE and they did this in DATE . Thereafter , ORG became responsible for the government of the remaining CARDINAL counties and , in DATE , a new LAW was introduced proclaiming the independence and sovereignty of the ORG of what is now known as GPE . After the Second World War it left the ORG and declared itself a republic .

From the DATE ’s onwards , GPE , that is the above - mentioned CARDINAL counties , had a separate Government and ORG of its own . In addition , the electorate of the province ( meaning in this judgment the CARDINAL counties ) returned CARDINAL members to ORG . With certain defined matters excepted , ORG were the legislative and executive authorities for the CARDINAL counties until DATE when the GPE authorities resumed " direct rule " of the province ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

GPE is not a homogeneous society . It consists of CARDINAL communities divided by deep and long - standing antagonisms . CARDINAL community is variously termed NORP , ORG or ORG , the other is generally labelled as NORP , NORP or NORP . CARDINAL of the population of CARDINAL belong to the NORP community , the remaining third to the NORP community . The majority group is descended from NORP settlers who emigrated in large numbers from GPE to GPE during DATE . The now traditional antagonism between the CARDINAL groups is based both on religion and on social , economic and political differences . In particular , the NORP community has consistently opposed the idea of a united GPE independent of GPE , whereas the NORP community has traditionally supported it .

ORG ( IRA ) is a clandestine organisation with quasi - military dispositions . Formed during the troubles prior to the partition of the island and illegal in GPE as well as in GPE , the IRA neither accepts the existence of GPE as part of GPE nor recognises the democratic order of GPE . It has periodically mounted campaigns of terrorism in both parts of the island of GPE and in GPE . After DATE , the ORG was not overtly active for DATE .

During the time covered by the complaints of the applicant Government that is from DATE to DATE virtually all those members of the IRA living and operating in GPE were recruited from among the NORP community .

Legislation designed to deal with matters affecting law and order and the security of the ORG was first enacted by ORG in DATE in the form of ORG ( GPE ) . This legislation ( hereinafter referred to as " GPE " ) was an enabling LAW were from time to time made and brought into operation . Thus , for instance , a LAW dating from before DATE declared illegal certain organisations , including the IRA . In DATE , following raids carried out by the IRA in GPE and GPE , Regulations were introduced granting powers of entry and search . In DATE and DATE , in order to combat an IRA campaign then being launched , further Regulations were made dealing with internment , curfew , special trial procedures , firearms and explosives control , and restriction on movement . An account of the particular Regulations at issue in the present case , namely LAW , DATE ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , appears below at DATE .

The differing aspirations of the CARDINAL communities resulted in the division between the main political parties in GPE being based primarily on their attitude to the status of the province as part of GPE rather than on political differences of the type commonly found in the rest of GPE and elsewhere . The NORP community in general voted for ORG , which wished GPE to remain within GPE , whilst the NORP community in general supported candidates favouring a united , independent GPE . Given the relative sizes of the CARDINAL communities , the inevitable result of this polarisation was that ORG , supported almost exclusively by NORP , had a permanent majority in ORG and formed the Government of the province throughout DATE leading up to direct rule in DATE . The abolition of proportional representation in DATE and the geographical arrangement of constituencies affected a great increase in the size of the Parliamentary majority . This situation understandably disenchanted the NORP community .

Thus , whilst only a small minority of the latter community has ever actively supported the ORG , a very much greater proportion had always been discontented with NORP government and the effects of its in - built majority . The NORP in the population regarded themselves as discriminated against on various counts . ORG , a body appointed by ORG in DATE to report , inter alia , on the causes of disturbances in the CARDINAL counties in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , considered justified many of the grievances then felt by the NORP , in particular those concerned with the allocation of houses , local authority appointments , limitations on local electoral franchise and deliberate manipulation of ward boundaries and electoral areas . ORG itself came to the conclusion that there certainly was an element of inherent bias in the whole political system in GPE in favour of CARDINAL community .

From the time of partition onwards there has always been a greater or lesser degree of tension between the CARDINAL communities , although since DATE there have been no disturbances comparable in scale to those of DATE .

In DATE the first moves towards a campaign for " civil rights " for the NORP community began to be made . The objectives of this campaign were , broadly speaking , the removal of the discrimination referred to above .

At the same time , though , manifestations of NORP violence began to emerge . In DATE there was serious rioting in GPE following a NORP march . In DATE , several petrol bombs were thrown at NORP schools and property . In DATE , a body calling itself ORG ( ORG ) , previously unknown to the police , issued a statement declaring war on the ORG and warning of its intention to execute all IRA men . Shortly thereafter , CARDINAL NORP were murdered and CARDINAL others seriously wounded in GPE . CARDINAL NORP , members of the ORG , were subsequently charged and convicted for these attacks . The ORG , believed by the police to have consisted of CARDINAL persons , was declared illegal in DATE and seems to have remained inactive from then until DATE .

During this period , there was no violent activity of significance by the ORG , who , after DATE , appear to have concentrated on political activity .

Throughout DATE , the movement for " civil rights " for the NORP community gathered momentum . The first civil rights march took place in DATE without incident , but in DATE a clash with the police and CARDINAL days’ rioting ensued after a march in GPE .

On DATE , ORG announced a reform programme to deal with the NORP grievances . Nevertheless , the civil rights movement continued its campaign and marches . The marches again led to clashes with the police and to violent confrontation with NORP counter - demonstrators , often armed with cudgels , stones and the like .

The demonstrations , disturbances and rioting continued in various places into DATE . In paragraph CARDINAL of its report , presented to ORG in DATE , ORG expressed the view that certain NORP extremist organisations " must ... bear a heavy share of direct responsibility for [ certain of ] the disorders ... and also for inflaming passions and engineering opposition to lawful , and what would in all probability otherwise have been peaceful , demonstrations or at least have attracted only modified and easily controlled opposition " . Police conduct in handling certain disturbances was also criticised by ORG .

In DATE and DATE , CARDINAL major explosions thought to have been caused by the ORG occurred at water and electricity installations in CARDINAL counties . Units of NORP troops were flown into the province .

The GPE Prime Minister , whose reform policies were unpopular with many NORP , resigned at DATE . DATE , his successor declared a general amnesty for persons charged with or convicted of offences connected with the recent political protests and demonstrations .

Tension remained high ; sectarian disturbances continued periodically up to DATE . On CARDINAL DATE , a traditional NORP anniversary parade sparked off DATE of large - scale rioting , first of all in GPE and thereafter spreading to GPE and other places . After CARDINAL civilians had been killed and QUANTITY civilians and CARDINAL policemen wounded , it was found necessary to call in aid units of the NORP army .

The riots in DATE greatly exceeded in severity any that had occurred in DATE . Casualties and damage to property were extensive . In GPE , for instance , a large number of houses and licensed LOC , mostly NORP owned or occupied , were burnt down , destroyed or damaged .

The GPE Prime Minister called a peace conference on DATE which was attended by representatives of the CARDINAL communities . On DATE , GPE and ORG issued a joint declaration re - affirming , inter alia , their commitment to reforms in the CARDINAL counties .

In DATE , a programme of reform was announced ; it included the reorganisation of the police force and local government , measures to prohibit discrimination in public employment , and the establishment of ORG and a central housing authority .

However , the publication of a government report into the functions and organisation of the province ’s police force had produced a violent reaction in NORP circles . On DATE , a policeman was shot dead by a bullet fired from a crowd of NORP rioters in GPE . He became the first member of the security forces to be killed during the disorders of DATE .

The IRA carried out no major acts of violence in DATE . However , at GPE DATE they had reactivated their forces , placing all volunteers on full alert . At the same time , the IRA are thought to have gained much more support as a result of the riots and of an accompanying loss of confidence by NORP in the police .

Towards DATE , the IRA split into CARDINAL wings . For some time there had been dissension in the movement between those who hoped to bring about a form of socialist people ’s republic for all GPE and those who considered that such involvement deflected the ORG from its traditional aims . The traditionalists formed themselves into the Provisional IRA whilst the followers of the new political doctrines became ORG . Both factions remained organised along military lines .

The situation worsened in DATE . The number of explosions recorded by the police jumped dramatically from a total of CARDINAL in DATE to CARDINAL in DATE . Some explosions were caused by ORG - CARDINAL according to statistics cited by the ORG - but there is no dispute that the majority were the work of the ORG . In total , CARDINAL civilians and QUANTITY policemen were killed during the course of DATE . None of these deaths was attributed by the police to NORP activity .

The terrorist campaign by the ORG appears to have begun in earnest in DATE and to have been CARDINAL primarily of bombing buildings and attacking the security forces . There was also undoubtedly some terrorist activity on the part of ORG , directed largely against politicians seen as hostile to Unionism and against NORP owned or occupied property , particularly licensed LOC . Responsibility for certain explosions was in fact claimed by the ORG .

The sharp increase in what may be termed terrorist - type activity was not accompanied by the cessation of inter - communal street disturbances which continued sporadically during DATE and accounted for the deaths of a number of people .

DATE , the violence intensified , being marked by a dramatic upsurge in terrorist activity by the IRA . Police statistics record a total of CARDINAL explosions , including CARDINAL for DATE . Shooting at the security forces’ patrols built up and for the first time soldiers numbered amongst those killed . By DATE , CARDINAL soldiers , QUANTITY policemen and QUANTITY civilians had died since DATE . In addition , serious and prolonged rioting occurred in both NORP and NORP areas .

Apart from CARDINAL explosion in which a civilian was killed , there is no evidence of any deaths or even injuries having been caused by NORP terrorists . On the applicant ORG ’s own approximate estimate , NORP explosions accounted for CARDINAL out of the overall total of CARDINAL . Furthermore , as in DATE , NORP terrorists used mainly pipe bombs which were not very powerful in comparison with the devices employed by the IRA .

The ORG stated in its report that the IRA were indisputably responsible for the very great majority of the acts of violence during this period . NORP terrorist activity had declined ; there is no evidence that such NORP terrorism as did exist formed part of a highly organised campaign in the sense that IRA activity did . The ORG ’s conclusion was that the threat and reality of serious terrorism came almost exclusively from the IRA .

On the political front during DATE and DATE , progress was made in implementing the reforms announced in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Prime Minister of GPE , however , resigned in DATE . In DATE , his successor proposed a number of further steps designed to provide a positive role for representatives of the minority community in the actual process of government .

It was against the background outlined above that on CARDINAL DATE ORG brought into operation extrajudicial measures of detention and internment of suspected terrorists . From CARDINAL DATE until DATE , when certain of GPE were replaced , the authorities in GPE in fact exercised CARDINAL such extrajudicial powers : ( i ) arrest for interrogation purposes during TIME ( under LAW ) ; ( ii ) arrest and remand in custody ( under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; ( iii ) detention of an arrested person ( under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) ; and ( iv ) internment ( under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ) . An account of the operation of these powers and the procedures there under is given below at CARDINAL .

For some time , the possibility of internment had been extensively canvassed in the press and amongst politicians . Pressure had also been mounting within the NORP community for its introduction ; in DATE there had been demonstrations against the then Prime Minister because of his ORG ’s alleged failure to deal with the IRA threat .

The decision to introduce a policy of detention and internment was taken on CARDINAL DATE by ORG , following a meeting in GPE between LOC and ORG . Prior to this , the question had been considered at the highest level in GPE and frequent consultations had taken place between the two Governments .

In DATE , as an apparent last resort to avoid introducing internment , the security forces had intensified operations against suspected terrorists , mounting searches and detaining for questioning what were believed to be key figures in the ORG . CARDINAL persons were arrested but no significant results were yielded . Prior to DATE , the intelligence obtained by the police had failed to provide anything but a very general picture of the IRA organisation .

The campaign of violence carried out by the IRA had attained unprecedented proportions by DATE . This was clearly the dominant factor behind the decision to exercise the extrajudicial powers .

CARDINAL principal reasons for the decision have been cited by the respondent Government . Firstly , the authorities took the view that the normal procedures of investigation and criminal prosecution had become inadequate to deal with IRA terrorists ; it was considered that the ordinary criminal courts could no longer be relied on as the sole process of law for restoring peace and order . The second reason given , which was closely related to the first , was the widespread intimidation of the population . Such intimidation often made it impossible to obtain sufficient evidence to secure a criminal conviction against a known IRA terrorist in the absence of an admissible confession or of police or army testimony . Furthermore , the conduct of police enquiries was seriously hampered by the grip the IRA had on certain so - called " no - go " areas , that is NORP strongholds where terrorists , unlike the police , could operate in comparative safety . Thirdly , the ease of escape across the territorial border between GPE and GPE presented difficulties of control .

In addition to the CARDINAL " security " reasons , there was , in the judgment of both ORG and ORG , no hope of winning over the terrorists by political means , the reform programme initiated in DATE having failed to prevent continuing violence .

The authorities therefore came to the conclusion that it was necessary to introduce a policy of detention and internment of persons suspected of serious terrorist activities but against whom sufficient evidence could not be laid in court . This policy was regarded as a temporary measure primarily aimed at breaking the influence of the IRA . It was intended that a respite would be provided so as to enable the political and social reforms already undertaken to achieve their full effects .

The possibility of interning ORG was discussed in the preparatory stages . The security forces were aware of some NORP terrorist activity in DATE and also of certain NORP extremists , described by those forces as " rabble rousers " and suspected by them of acts of violence or intimidation , if not of terrorism strictly speaking . However , the security forces did not judge at this stage that there was any serious threat coming from DATE . There was said to be no army or police intelligence then available which indicated that any organisation other than the IRA had been actively engaged in bombing and killing in DATE .

On account of the unprecedented level it had reached , and because of its nature as a highly organised , politically motivated campaign designed to overthrow the ORG , IRA terrorism was regarded as the real menace to law and order . NORP terrorist activity , which was in the main directed against the NORP community and not the ORG or the security forces , was seen by the authorities more as sporadic and as being on a minute scale in comparison and on a much less organised basis .

In DATE preceding the introduction of internment , the police , in consultation with the army , were preparing lists of persons to be arrested . The lists included not only suspected IRA terrorists but also persons suspected of being involved or associated with the ORG or even , in a few cases , of possessing information about others so involved or associated . It was generally understood that the target of the planned exercise was the ORG .

DATE . Starting at TIME on DATE , QUANTITY DATE , the army , with police officers occasionally acting as guides , mounted an operation to arrest the CARDINAL persons whose names appeared on the final list . In the event , CARDINAL persons were arrested in accordance with LAW . The arrested persons were taken to CARDINAL of the CARDINAL regional holding centres ( ORG in GPE , ORG in GPE and ORG in GPE ) that had been set up to receive the prisoners during TIME . All those arrested were subjected to interrogation by police officers of ORG ( ORG ) . ORG persons were released within TIME . Those who were to be detained were sent on to the prison ship " FAC " or to FAC , both in GPE . Prior to being lodged in detention , CARDINAL individuals were moved to CARDINAL or more unidentified centres for " interrogation in depth " extending over DATE .

Operation Demetrius , as the ORG points out , was not a selective manoeuvre aimed at individuals but a " sweeping - up " exercise directed against the IRA organisation as a whole . It is generally accepted that because of the scale and speed of the operation , some persons were arrested or even detained on the basis of inadequate or inaccurate information .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE , the Prime Minister of GPE announced to the public the introduction of internment . He stated , inter alia :

" The main target of the present operation is ORG ... They are the present threat ; but we will not hesitate to take strong action against any other individuals or organisations who may present such a threat in the future . "

Arrests continued to be made during the rest of DATE , partly of persons on the above - mentioned list and partly of persons who came under suspicion thereafter .

The CARDINAL regional holding centres were closed down in DATE shortly after PERSON was completed , and in DATE police centres were established at FAC ( GPE , County Down ) , GPE ( GPE ) , GPE ) and PERSON ( GPE ) for the purpose of holding and interrogating persons arrested under LAW .

The introduction of internment provoked a violent reaction from the NORP community and the IRA . Serious rioting broke out in GPE and elsewhere , there was a considerable increase in shootings and bombings , and the security situation in general deteriorated rapidly . Within the minority community there occurred a further alienation from the authorities and the security forces , together with a rise in support for the IRA .

Although surprised by the extent of this reaction , both LOC and ORG continued their efforts to secure political progress . In GPE , the ORG Secretary announced in DATE his ORG ’s determination to ensure that the NORP population in the province should have an active , permanent and guaranteed role in the conduct of public business . In DATE , a meeting took place in GPE between the Prime Ministers of GPE , GPE and GPE . In DATE , ORG published proposals for involving the opposition in government . However , these proposals were considered unacceptable by the political representatives of the NORP community and nothing came of them .

Neither internment nor the political initiatives ended the violence . On the contrary , the numbers of deaths , explosions and shootings recorded by the police for DATE throughout DATE were higher than those recorded in any of DATE . There was a total of CARDINAL persons killed , including CARDINAL members of the security forces and CARDINAL civilians , CARDINAL explosions and CARDINAL shooting incidents .

Apart from rioting and a small - scale bombing campaign of licensed LOC , there was apparently little serious violence by NORP in DATE . CARDINAL death occurring DATE , an assassination of a NORP in DATE , was attributed by the police to NORP . On the other hand , intimidation of members of the opposite community to move from their homes seems to have become more prevalent on both sides , although the official figures indicate that NORP were principally affected .

On the NORP side , the increased violence at this time led to the formation of defence associations or vigilante groups which ultimately amalgamated in or DATE to become ORG ( ORG ) . The ORG did not appear openly on the streets until DATE . There was also seen the start of a development later to become significant , that is the holding of large , carefully prepared parades by NORP organisations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The latter and in particular the ORG were looked on by the police as primarily political organisations not engaged in violence as such .

At DATE , despite a small drop , the level of violence remained higher than at any time before CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , CARDINAL people were killed by army gunfire in the course of disorders taking place in the predominantly NORP town of GPE . This incident led to a new upsurge in support for the IRA amongst the NORP community .

In DATE , CARDINAL people were killed , including CARDINAL members of the security forces . CARDINAL assassinations carried out in DATE , CARDINAL of a NORP and the other of a NORP , were the only deaths attributed to NORP activity . CARDINAL explosions , the vast majority attributed to the IRA , were caused during the same period .

From DATE until DATE there had been in GPE CARDINAL bomb explosions and CARDINAL shooting incidents . CARDINAL civilians , CARDINAL soldiers and CARDINAL policemen had been killed , and CARDINAL civilians , CARDINAL soldiers and CARDINAL ORG members injured .

Throughout DATE the numbers held under detention or internment orders proceeded to rise until a total of over CARDINAL persons , all suspected of involvement with the ORG , were held at DATE . At the same time , the ordinary processes of the criminal law continued to be used , against NORP as well as NORP , whenever there was thought to be sufficient evidence to ground a criminal conviction . Thus , between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , CARDINAL people were charged with " terrorist - type " offences .

DATE . In DATE , in view of the deteriorating circumstances , the ORG in GPE decided that they should assume direct responsibility for the administration of law and order in GPE if there was to be any hope of political progress . This decision was unacceptable to the Government of the province and accordingly it was announced on DATE that direct rule from GPE not only on law and order but on all matters was to be introduced .

Under LOC ( LAW DATE ( hereinafter referred to as LAW ) , which was passed by ORG and came into force on DATE , temporary provision was made for the exercise of the executive and legislative powers of ORG by GPE authorities . ORG was prorogued and the Queen empowered to legislate in its stead by ORG . The executive powers of ORG were transferred to the Secretary of ORG for GPE . This was a new office created for the purpose ; its holder was a member of ORG and answerable to ORG . The legislation was enacted for DATE but was subsequently extended .

On assuming direct rule , ORG stated that CARDINAL of their most important objectives was to bring internment under LAW to an end and to consider how far the powers under LAW could be dispensed with . On DATE , the Secretary of ORG for GPE announced the immediate release of CARDINAL internees and CARDINAL detainees . By DATE persons had been released . The decision to phase out internment was not dictated by any fall in the level of violence . Rather it was intended to open the way for political progress by reducing tension as the first step in the process of reconciliation .

On the political level , GPE was seeking the establishment of an equitable form of government for GPE , acceptable to both communities .

The introduction of direct rule , together with the release of detainees , caused resentment and dismay amongst the NORP community . A DATE strike , which proved largely effective , was immediately called by the leader of CARDINAL of the extremist movements on the NORP side .

Street demonstrations and marches called by the ORG appear to have begun shortly after DATE . The ORG was organised on pseudo - military lines , its members , estimated at CARDINAL persons , giving themselves military ranks . The ORG used its forces to erect barricades , set up road blocks and disrupt civil life generally . They paraded in large numbers through the centre of GPE and elsewhere , many of them masked and dressed in para - military uniforms and on occasions openly carrying weapons such as sticks or cudgels . Such demonstrations , however , seem rarely to have led to physical violence . Whilst it was illegal to block roads , wear uniforms or carry offensive weapons , the security forces did not attempt to arrest those taking part in ORG demonstrations since they feared that major riots would result . Neither were the extrajudicial powers of detention and internment ever used , against either NORP or NORP , to combat this kind of illegal activity .

According to the respondent Government , consideration was given to the possibility of proscribing the ORG , but it was decided that on balance no good purpose would be served by doing so , not least because most of its members were not engaged in violence . It is generally accepted , however , that ORG membership overlapped , to some extent at least , with the smaller and more militant extremist bodies which were illegal , such as the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Other aspects of NORP activity during this stage of the crisis included the erection of barricades and the continuing intimidation of NORP , a problem that became particularly grave in DATE . There were serious disturbances in NORP areas in DATE and DATE , with NORP terrorists exchanging fire with the security forces . The rioting in DATE ceased after the ORG had ordered the confrontation with the security forces to stop .

After the introduction of direct rule , there occurred a marked upward turn in NORP terrorism , evidenced by a few bombing attacks , a large - scale build - up of arms and ammunitions , and above all sectarian assassinations .

Sectarian assassinations , which the respondent Government term the outstanding feature of NORP violence since DATE , first reached serious proportions in DATE . Victims seem largely to have been chosen at random on no other ground than their membership of , or links with , the other community . Kidnapping and torturing sometimes accompanied this kind of indiscriminate killing . While both sides committed sectarian murders , it is generally accepted that NORP were responsible for more than NORP . The police had difficulty in detecting those responsible for sectarian assassinations . In particular , witnesses were reluctant to come forward and were subjected to intimidation . Accordingly , a confidential telephone system was installed in DATE , whereby information could be given anonymously to the security forces .

Although NORP terrorist activity had grown significantly , it nonetheless remained that the great bulk of serious violence in this period was attributed to the IRA ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The high level of IRA terrorism did not at all abate despite the phasing - out of internment . In fact , there was a steady rise in explosions , shooting incidents and casualties amongst the security forces over the period from DATE until DATE However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG , who had been responsible for a lesser amount of violence than the Provisionals , declared a truce which they have on the whole respected ever since . On DATE the Provisional IRA in their turn announced a truce , becoming effective on DATE . The Provisionals’ truce was , however , called off on DATE following an incident arising out of a communal argument between the ORG and NORP about the allocation of accommodation on a GPE housing estate .

After the breakdown of the ceasefire , Provisional IRA violence was resumed at an increased level . In DATE alone , CARDINAL members of the security forces and CARDINAL civilians were killed ; in addition , there were nearly CARDINAL explosions and CARDINAL shooting incidents . These figures were the highest for DATE in the entire emergency up to DATE . Responsibility was attributed to ORG for CARDINAL deaths and CARDINAL explosions .

Faced with the mounting tide of violence , ORG decided to restore the presence of the security forces in the " no - go " areas . After due warning had been given to the civilian population , a large - scale manoeuvre , known as PERSON , was mounted on DATE beginning at TIME

Even after PERSON the police were still not able to function properly in NORP areas . Access to NORP areas remained easier for the police and they were not subject there to the same risk of attack . The army operated principally , and was employed to carry out police duties , in those areas where the minority community predominated .

Nevertheless , the level of violence , although still high , immediately fell . In DATE , DATE and DATE , there was an overall total of CARDINAL shooting incidents as opposed to CARDINAL for DATE alone . The DATE average of deaths was CARDINAL the DATE total , and the number of explosions became progressively less .

According to the respondent Government , a development contributing to the maintenance of this gradual reduction was the institution in DATE of a revised system for the detention of terrorists .

In DATE following the introduction of direct rule – including DATE , the worst of DATE for violence - no new internment orders were made and fresh detentions virtually ceased . From DATE , after the breakdown of the attempted ceasefire , the number of detention orders - as before , against IRA suspects only - increased , while the rate of releases fell . There was , however , no large - scale operation to re - detain and re - intern people .

The political gesture of phasing out internment had not , as hoped , elicited a positive response from the ORG ; on the contrary , violence had mounted to fresh heights . Furthermore , the authorities judged that the capability of the ordinary processes of law to counter IRA terrorism continued to be impeded by a number of circumstances such as the intimidation of potential witnesses and the difficulty of bringing to trial those responsible for directing terrorist operations .

ORG therefore became convinced that it was necessary to find fresh means of separating known terrorists from the population at large . On DATE , the Government announced that it was to set up a Commission , subsequently appointed in DATE under the chairmanship of Lord PERSON ,

- to consider " what arrangements for the administration of justice in GPE could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations by bringing to book , otherwise than by internment by the Executive , individuals involved in terrorist activities , particularly those who plan and direct , but do not necessarily take part in , terrorist acts " ; and

- " to make recommendations " .

Without waiting for the report of ORG , the Government brought into effect on DATE ORG ( GPE ) Order DATE ( abbreviated hereafter to LAW ) , an Order made in exercise of the powers conferred by LAW ( see paragraph DATE above ) . This Order , which was of a temporary nature , revoked LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( detention ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( internment ) ; in replacement it instituted , with further procedural guarantees for the protection of the individual concerned , a new system of " interim custody " and " detention " for persons suspected of participation in terrorist activities . Regulations DATE ( CARDINAL ) ( arrest ) remained . Further details on the Order are given below at DATE .

The report of ORG was presented to ORG in DATE . This report analysed the minimum requirements of a judicial process , the effects of intimidation , possible changes in the rules of evidence and the need for detention without trial . It stated , inter alia :

" The fear of intimidation is widespread and well - founded . Until it can be removed and the personal safety of witnesses and their families guaranteed , the use by the Executive of some extrajudicial process for the detention of terrorists can not be dispensed with . "

ORG , on the basis of the evidence it had itself obtained , accepted that the findings of the PERSON report as to the level of intimidation were generally warranted .

Another contributory factor invoked by the respondent Government in connection with the fall in violence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was the intensive programme of consultations which they undertook with the political parties in GPE on the question of the future government of the province . These consultations , first commenced in DATE and DATE , continued throughout DATE and DATE . Apart from the steps taken on the security front , ORG thus maintained the new emphasis placed , since the introduction of direct rule , on attempting to find a solution to the crisis through political means ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The gradual reduction in the level of violence was maintained until DATE . The figures for deaths and explosions for DATE were , with one slight exception , lower than for DATE since the introduction of internment . Despite this general reduction , though , the development of NORP militancy and terrorist activity continued .

From DATE until DATE , CARDINAL persons were killed , CARDINAL of these deaths being attributed to ORG . The overall total included CARDINAL members of the security forces , the vast majority of whom were considered to have been killed by the ORG , and an equal number of victims of " factional or sectarian " assassinations . Of these assassinations , CARDINAL were ascribed to ORG , DATE to the IRA , with no attribution being possible in the remaining CARDINAL cases .

For their part , explosions totalled CARDINAL ; no more than a small percentage - for example , CARDINAL out of CARDINAL explosions recorded DATE and DATE - were regarded as being the work of ORG .

The increasing NORP militancy was further evidenced by the statistics on intimidation , arms and ammunitions recovered , and charges brought for " terrorist - type offences " . Thus , DATE , charges of the kind just referred to were laid against CARDINAL persons , namely CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP ; within this total , CARDINAL individuals - CARDINAL NORP , including CARDINAL in DATE of DATE , and CARDINAL NORP DATE were charged with murder or attempted murder .

NORP terrorism was linked by the police with NORP extremist organisations , notably the ORG . The police considered that the ORG ’s membership and acts of terrorism had increased from DATE following a period of relative inactivity after its DATE bombing campaign ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It was looked on as a well - armed and organised body . In general , by about DATE the police had reasonably good intelligence as to the identity of the violent elements on the NORP side , but there were cases in DATE in which it was impossible to procure sufficient evidence to bring such persons before the ordinary criminal courts . Nevertheless , none of the extrajudicial orders made between the introduction of direct rule and CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) applied to ORG .

NORP violence , however , remained on a far smaller scale than that of the Provisional IRA who , as the above - cited figures show , were still responsible for the great bulk of the terrorist deeds recorded .

In the view of the respondent Government and of the ORG , NORP and IRA violence were to be distinguished in further respects in addition to volume . NORP terrorism consisted largely of intimidation and sectarian assassinations , whereas the ORG campaign also included attacks on members of the security forces and the bombing of public places . As indicated earlier ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the character , aims and background of the various organisations engaged in terrorism on the CARDINAL sides differed . The evidence suggests that the NORP terrorist groups were at the time more amorphous than the IRA . Within the security forces there was a tendency , which the ORG regarded as justified in many ways , to look on NORP terrorists as " criminals " or " hooligans " and on the IRA as the organised " terrorist " enemy . The prospects of obtaining sufficient admissible evidence for a criminal prosecution were , it seems , judged by the security forces as being better in relation to NORP than to IRA suspects . Given the continued inability of the police to operate normally in NORP areas and the greater extent and organisation of the ORG campaign , the ORG found such an attitude " not surprising " .

Finally , the statistics referred to above at paragraph CARDINAL indicate that action , in the form of searches , recovery of arms and the bringing of criminal charges , was being taken by the authorities against both sides .

From DATE until DATE no new internment orders were made , although it was considered necessary to make CARDINAL detention orders under LAW ( CARDINAL ) . By the latter date CARDINAL men had been released from internment and CARDINAL from detention , leaving CARDINAL still interned and CARDINAL still detained . Between the entry into force of ORG and DATE , CARDINAL interim custody orders and CARDINAL detention orders were made while CARDINAL persons were released .

In the context of the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , the ORG noted in its report that subsequent to the introduction of direct rule the extrajudicial powers appear to have been exercised on a more selective basis and , broadly speaking , in accordance with the following criteria :

( i ) extrajudicial orders were served only on persons suspected of involvement in serious and organised terrorism ;

( ii ) they were used solely as a " last resort " , that is only in cases where sufficient evidence was not available to justify prosecution before the ordinary courts ;

( iii ) as a general practice , they were not made against a person in respect of matters for which he had been tried and acquitted by an ordinary court , provided that it had been possible to put before the court all the relevant evidence .

At DATE , a NORP soldier was shot dead in a NORP part of GPE . Shortly afterwards , on DATE , CARDINAL interim custody orders were made in respect of ORG . These CARDINAL men were the first ORG against whom the extrajudicial powers were exercised . According to the applicant Government , the specific act of which one of these men was suspected - the bombing of a bus , responsibility for which had been claimed immediately after the event by the ORG - had caused a public outcry and had actually forced a decision to " intern " the first suspected NORP terrorist . The decision itself had been the subject of discussions between the Secretary of ORG for GPE , the General Officer Commanding the NORP forces in the province and high ranking civil servants . The relevant higher authorities are noted in the GPE ’s report as recognising that the detention of ORG would lead to repercussions in the security situation . The ORG accepts that the risk of a severe outbreak of NORP violence in response was clearly a very real one .

Prior to DATE , it seems , no recommendations had been made to the Secretary of ORG for the detention or internment of ORG .

According to the applicant Government , the exercise of the extrajudicial powers against ORG brought in its wake widespread threats from the ORG . In general , however , the pattern of violence from DATE can be said to have followed the previous pattern , although at a somewhat lower level than in DATE . The bulk of the terrorist acts that is most of the bombing and shooting attacks on members of the security forces were still perpetrated by ORG , with the ORG committing the majority of the sectarian assassinations .

From DATE until DATE , the police registered CARDINAL deaths , of which CARDINAL were considered to be the responsibility of NORP . Of the CARDINAL " factional or sectarian " murders recorded , CARDINAL were ascribed to ORG and DATE to the IRA and in CARDINAL cases no attribution was possible . In DATE , the number of explosions dropped to CARDINAL - CARDINAL being attributed to ORG - as compared with CARDINAL in DATE . For their part , shootings fell from CARDINAL to CARDINAL , although an increase occurred in punishment shootings such as " executions " and " knee - capping " .

DATE . On DATE , GPE ( Emergency LAW Act DATE ( hereafter abbreviated to LAW ) came into force . This Act , which was based mainly on the recommendations of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , repealed the DATE LAW CARDINAL and DATE ( CARDINAL ) and the DATE Terrorists Order , while retaining in substance the procedure laid down in the latter Order . Briefly , the extrajudicial powers introduced under LAW were : ( i ) arrest and detention for TIME ; ( ii ) interim custody for DATE ; and ( iii ) detention ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below for a fuller explanation ) . These emergency powers remained in force for a period of DATE unless renewed . The LAW also dealt with the trial and punishment by the ordinary courts of certain scheduled offences , for the most part offences concerned with violence . CARDINAL provision , section CARDINAL , is referred to below at paragraph CARDINAL .

DATE and DATE , interim custody orders were served on CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP ; at all times many more NORP than NORP were actually held . Shortly before DATE , CARDINAL detainees , CARDINAL of whom were NORP , were released .

During the same period , CARDINAL persons were charged with " terrorist - type offences " , the total being made up as follows : CARDINAL NORP , CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL soldiers . These figures included CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP charged with murder . In addition , searches were being conducted and arms recovered in relation to both sides .

While the level of violence was reduced in DATE and DATE , progress on the political front was somewhat erratic . In DATE , ORG published a ORG setting out proposals for the constitutional future of the CARDINAL counties . These proposals envisaged a new regional government with participation at " cabinet " level by representatives of both communities . A DATE Act provided for the election of a ORG before the main constitutional legislation was enacted . Elections , based on the principle of proportional representation in order to ensure a fair representation for the NORP minority , were held on DATE . Of the CARDINAL members elected to the ORG , CARDINAL were in favour of the proposed constitutional changes , even though the extreme NORP parties had conducted a campaign of opposition .

The White Paper proposals were enacted in DATE in the form of GPE DATE . This Act empowered the ORG to legislate within certain limits and established an Executive . ORG on Human Rights was instituted to advise the Secretary of ORG . The LAW also specifically provided that legislation passed by the ORG would be void if it discriminated on the ground of religious belief or political opinion ; in addition , discrimination by public authorities on such grounds was expressly rendered unlawful .

The provisions of the LAW relating to legislative and executive powers required the passing by ORG of a Devolution Order . The LAW was made on DATE and the devolution became effective on DATE . This devolution , which was based on the principle of " power - sharing " between the CARDINAL communities , marked for a certain time the end of direct rule .

The Northern Ireland Executive came into office on DATE . For the first time , a ORG contained representatives of both the majority and minority communities , but its life proved to be very brief . In DATE , NORP extremist groups combined to organise a politically motivated strike which brought about the downfall of the Executive and a return to direct rule from GPE . On DATE , Her Majesty , acting under LAW referred to in the preceding paragraph , by ORG directed that ORG should stand prorogued for DATE .

On DATE , GPE DATE was passed by ORG in order to make temporary provision for the government of the CARDINAL counties . This Act suspended the functions of the above - mentioned ORG and enabled laws to be made by ORG , enacted that no appointments to the Executive were to be made , and made the province ’s departments subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of ORG for GPE .

In DATE , ORG appointed ORG whose terms of reference were to consider what provisions and powers , consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights , were required to deal with terrorism and subversion in GPE , including provisions for the administration of justice ; to examine the working of the DATE LAW ; and to make recommendations .

The report of ORG was presented to ORG in DATE . This report critically examined trial procedures before the ordinary courts , existing and proposed offences connected with terrorism , the powers of the security forces , prison accommodation , special category prisoners and detention . When dealing with the question of detention , ORG noted at paragraph CARDINAL :

" ... We have detailed evidence of CARDINAL cases of intimidation of witnesses DATE : and there must be many more . Civilian witnesses to murder and other terrorist offences are either too afraid to make any statement at all , or , having made a statement identifying the criminal , refuse in any circumstances to give evidence in court . The prevalence of murder and knee - capping make this only too easy to understand . "

ORG , while making certain recommendations about detention and existing detention procedures , concluded at paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL :

" After long and anxious consideration , we are of the opinion that detention can not remain as a long - term policy . In the short term , it may be an effective means of containing violence , but the prolonged effects of the use of detention are ultimately inimical to community life , fan a widespread sense of grievance and injustice , and obstruct those elements in GPE society which could lead to reconciliation . Detention can only be tolerated in a NORP society in the most extreme circumstances ; it must be used with the utmost restraint and retained only as long as it is strictly necessary . We would like to be able to recommend that the time has come to abolish detention ; but the present level of violence , the risks of increased violence , and the difficulty of predicting events even DATE make it impossible for us to put forward a precise recommendation on the timing .

We think that this grave decision can only be made by the Government ... "

LAW of DATE , the main subject of the examination by ORG , was extended by Orders of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On DATE , ORG , acting on the recommendations of the PERSON report , passed GPE ( Emergency Provisions ) LAW DATE ( hereafter abbreviated to LAW ) . This Act , which came into effect on CARDINAL DATE , amended the law relating to detention without trial ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as well as containing further provisions concerned with criminal proceedings , the maintenance of order and the detection of crime in GPE . LAW is still in force , having twice been continued by ORG .

DATE . No detailed statistics for DATE are before the ORG , although a few figures as to murder charges appear in the ORG ’s report . By DATE , the police had been able to bring criminal charges against a total of CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP in respect of CARDINAL sectarian murders .

On DATE , the Secretary of ORG for GPE signed orders for the release from detention of the last CARDINAL individuals held under the emergency legislation . Since DATE , according to the data before the ORG , no person has been held in detention under the extrajudicial measures in GPE .

The terrorism and violence in the province have persisted through DATE until DATE , accounting , for instance , for the murders of CARDINAL persons and injuries to CARDINAL others DATE and DATE .

The respondent Government have drawn attention , before both the ORG and the ORG , to the continuous programme of reform implemented in GPE since DATE in order to tackle the problems of unfair discrimination which had prompted the civil rights movement . Radical changes have been made in the structure of local government in the province : universal suffrage was introduced in DATE , proportional representation in DATE , local government boundaries were revised in DATE , and many important functions such as education and housing were transferred to special area boards or to central government bodies in the hope of ending or reducing the fear of discrimination in the social field . In DATE , ORG established a Parliamentary Commissioner ( i.e. Ombudsman ) for ORG and a Commissioner for ORG . The provisions of LAW of DATE directed against discrimination have already been referred to ( paragraph DATE above ) . ORG on Human Rights , set up under the last - mentioned LAW , began in DATE a detailed study of the extent to which the existing legislation provides a sufficient protection for human rights in the CARDINAL counties . Legislation making discrimination unlawful in the private sector was introduced in DATE .

DATE . During the period under consideration , in addition to the ordinary criminal law which remained in force and in use , the authorities had various special powers to combat terrorism in GPE . These were all discretionary and underwent modification from time to time , as is described below ; they enabled the authorities to effect extrajudicial deprivation of liberty falling into the following CARDINAL basic categories :

- initial arrest for interrogation ;

- detention for further interrogation ( originally called " detention " and subsequently " interim custody " ) ;

- preventive detention ( originally called " internment " and subsequently " detention " ) .

In accordance with LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , ORG sent to the Secretary - General of ORG , both before and after the original application to the Commission , CARDINAL notices of derogation in respect of these powers . Such notices , of which the first CARDINAL are not pertinent in the present case , were dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and drew attention to the relevant legislation and modifications thereof .

LAW empowered the Minister of ORG for GPE , until DATE , or , thereafter and until DATE , the Secretary of ORG for GPE to take all such steps and issue all such orders as might be necessary for preserving peace and maintaining order . It was an enabling Act whose substantive provisions were contained in Regulations made there under . Before direct rule , either ORG of ORG of GPE could , at the time Regulations were made , request the Governor to annul them ; subsequently , new Regulations were subject to approval by ORG .

The number and scope of the ORG in force varied over DATE ; they could be brought into use without any legislative act or proclamation . Those relevant to the present case were made in DATE ( LAW and DATE ) and DATE ( LAW ) . They were utilised to implement the policy of internment introduced on CARDINAL DATE and advice of their use was given to the Secretary - General by ORG notice of derogation of CARDINAL DATE ( Yearbook of the Convention , volume CARDINAL , page CARDINAL ) . They conferred the CARDINAL powers described below .

Under this Regulation

- any individual could be arrested without warrant and detained for the purpose of interrogation ;

- the arrest could be authorised by any officer of the ORG ;

- the officer had to be of the opinion that the arrest should be realised " for the preservation of the peace and maintenance of order " ;

- the detention could not exceed TIME .

Exercise of the power was not conditional on suspicion of an offence and , following a practice originating in instructions issued to the military police in DATE , the individual was not normally informed of the reason for his arrest . Although looked upon in principle as a preliminary to detention and internment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , arrest sometimes had the object of interrogating a person about the activities of others . Some arrests , and some subsequent detention orders , seem to have been made on the basis of inadequate or inaccurate information .

The individual could not apply for bail ( see the judgment of CARDINAL DATE delivered by ORG in GPE in the case of In LOC ) . Moreover , arrests under this ORG could not as a general rule be questioned in the courts but it was held in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE delivered by ORG in the case of PERSON v. PERSON and ORG that failure to comply with the proper procedure , including certain fundamental principles of the common law , invalidated exercise of the power .

On DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) repealed LAW . CARDINAL persons had been arrested there under prior to DATE , of whom CARDINAL had been released within TIME and CARDINAL had had their detention prolonged under other Regulations .

Under this Regulation

- any individual could be arrested without warrant ;

- the arrest could be effected by any police constable , member of the forces or person authorised by ORG " ( i.e. the Minister of ORG or his delegates ) ;

- the person making the arrest had to suspect the individual of acting , having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order or of having committed an offence against the ORG ;

- the duration of the arrest was unlimited in law but limited in practice to TIME .

Arrest under this Regulation could follow arrest under LAW , giving a total of at CARDINAL . The individual was not normally informed of the reason for his arrest .

Judicial decisions show that review by the courts of the exercise of this power was limited . They could intervene if there had been bad faith , absence of a genuine suspicion , improper motive or failure to comply either with the statutory procedures or with such principles of the common law as were held not to be excluded by the language of the Regulation ; however , they could not in general enquire into the reasonableness or fairness of the suspicion or of the decision to exercise the power ( see the PERSON case and the judgment of DATE delivered by ORG in GPE in the case of PERSON and others ) .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , the individual could apply to ORG for release on bail and , if that ORG so directed , might be conditionally discharged from custody by a magistrate ; however , this right was abolished on DATE with the revocation of LAW ( CARDINAL ) by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Regulation CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) was repealed on DATE by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Under this Regulation

- any individual arrested under LAW ( CARDINAL ) could be detained in prison or elsewhere on the conditions directed by ORG ;

- the power to make detention orders was vested in ORG and the initiative for them came from the police . The respondent Government said that they were always made on the personal decision , before direct rule , of the Prime Minister of GPE or , thereafter , of the Secretary of ORG for GPE or CARDINAL other Ministers ;

- detention continued until the individual was discharged by the Attorney - General or brought before a court . Its duration was unlimited in law but limited in practice , generally , to DATE .

The respondent Government said that detention orders were made to enable the police to complete enquiries . If they had sufficient evidence to secure a conviction , the individual would be brought before an ordinary court in which event he was entitled to CARDINAL hours’ notice of the charge . Alternatively , he might be released after a limited period or be the subject of an internment order ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The detainee had the limited right to apply for bail afforded by LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The position concerning supervision by the courts was the same as under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( see the PERSON and the PERSON cases ) and there was no other procedure for review of the detention .

CARDINAL detention orders were made under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , the vast majority before DATE . CARDINAL orders were still in force on DATE when the ORG was revoked by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Under this Regulation

- any individual could by order be subjected to restrictions on movement or interned ;

- the power to make such orders was vested before direct rule in the Minister of ORG for GPE on the recommendation of a senior police officer or of an advisory committee . The respondent Government said that they were always made on the personal decision of the Prime Minister of GPE ;

- the Minister had to be satisfied that for securing the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order it was expedient that a person suspected of acting , having acted or being about to act in a manner prejudicial te peace and order be subjected to such restrictions or interned ;

- the duration of internment was unlimited . In many cases , after prolongation under later legislation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , it lasted for DATE .

Every order had to provide for the consideration by and advisory committee of representations made by the individual . In fact it reviewed the position of all internees whether they made representations or not . The committee composed of a judge and CARDINAL laymen , could recommend , but not order , release .

The individual had no right in law to appear or be legally represented before the committee , to test the grounds for internment , to examine witnesses against him or to call his own witnesses . In fact , he was allowed to appear and be interviewed and every effort was made to trace witnesses he proposed . The committee required the security forces to produce the information in their possession but statements of evidence against the internee so obtained remained anonymous , apparently to avoid retaliation . According to the ORG , the committee probably relied on evidence not admissible in a court of law .

The position concerning the review of internment orders by the courts was the same as under LAW , DATE ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( see the PERSON case ) .

CARDINAL orders were made under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , all before the introduction of direct rule . CARDINAL orders were still in force on DATE when the ORG was revoked by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

By DATE , CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cases had been reviewed by the advisory committee ( although CARDINAL internees refused to appear ) and CARDINAL releases recommended . Of the CARDINAL individuals all were released except CARDINAL who refused to give an undertaking as to future good behaviour .

ORG , a temporary measure made under LAW ( see paragraph DATE above ) , introduced an independent review of decisions on detention for further interrogation and on preventive detention whereas , previously , such decisions had been taken by the administrative authority alone . The Order revoked with effect from DATE LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) - but not CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) - and converted existing detention or internment orders into interim custody orders ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Order defined " terrorism " as " the use of violence for political ends [ including ] any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear " .

The Secretary - General of ORG was advised of the making of this Order by ORG notice of derogation of DATE ( ORG , volume CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The Order conferred the powers described below and was repealed by LAW on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Under this Article

- any individual could by an interim custody order be temporarily detained ;

- the power to make such orders was vested in the Secretary of ORG for GPE ;

- the power was exercisable where it appeared to the Secretary of ORG that the individual was suspected of having been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism or the organisation of persons for the purpose of terrorism ;

- detention was limited to DATE unless the case was referred by the Chief Constable - or , as regards persons originally held under LAW , by the Secretary of ORG - to a commissioner for determination , in which event it could continue only until such determination .

The individual had to be released after DATE if his case had not by then been referred to a commissioner but , in fact , all cases , including those of persons originally detained or interned under LAW , were so referred . During the order ’s initial DATE and during its extension pending the commissioner ’s adjudication , which could take DATE , the individual had no means under the Terrorists Order of challenging the lawfulness of his detention .

Figures for interim custody orders appear in paragraph CARDINAL below .

Under this Article

- where the case of an individual subject to an interim custody order under LAW was referred to a commissioner , he could make a detention order for that individual ’s detention ;

- the commissioner had first to satisfy himself by enquiry that the individual had been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism or the organisation of persons for the purpose of terrorism and that his detention was necessary for the protection of the public . If so satisfied , he had to make an order ; if not , he had to direct the individual ’s discharge ;

- the duration of detention was unlimited . In many cases , after prolongation under later legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it lasted for DATE .

Unlike the recommendation of the advisory committee under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , a commissioner ’s decision to release was binding . The Secretary of ORG retained independent powers to release detainees with or without conditions and to recall to detention an individual conditionally released by him . He could also at any time refer a detention order case to a commissioner for review ; in that event discharge was obligatory unless the commissioner considered continued detention necessary for public protection .

Proceedings before a commissioner took place in private . DATE before the hearing the individual had to be notified in writing of the nature of the terrorist activities to be enquired into . He had the right to legal aid and to be legally represented and had to be present unless removed on grounds of disorderly conduct or of security . He could be required to answer questions ; he had no right to examine or have examined witnesses against him but the respondent Government said that , in practice , cross - examination took place . The individual had to be informed , as far as possible , of matters dealt with in his absence for security reasons but had no right to test evidence given at that time . The commissioner might receive evidence however obtained and irrespective of whether it would be admissible in a court of law . This procedure applied , mutatis mutandis , both to initial references to a commissioner and to later references for review .

Article CARDINAL of the Terrorists Order introduced a right for the individual to appeal within DATE against a detention order to a detention appeal tribunal of CARDINAL members . Procedurally the individual ’s position before the tribunal was similar to his position before a commissioner ; however , he was entitled to be present only when fresh evidence was produced , which was rare as the tribunal generally relied on the evidence furnished to the commissioner .

Both commissioners and members of the tribunal had to have experience of judicial office or CARDINAL years’ experience as a barrister , advocate or solicitor .

Figures for detention orders appear in paragraph CARDINAL below .

LAW , based on the recommendations of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , repealed with effect from CARDINAL DATE LAW ( CARDINAL ) and the Terrorists Order but maintained in effect - under its own provisions - the existing interim custody and detention orders . The emergency powers contained in the new LAW were to remain in force for DATE unless renewed for a period not exceeding one year by an Order of the Secretary of ORG approved by both ORG ; they were in fact renewed for DATE periods commencing on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and then amended on CARDINAL DATE by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The Secretary - General of ORG was advised of the new legislation , and of the subsequent renewal and amendment of the emergency powers , by ORG notices of derogation of CARDINAL DATE ( Yearbook of the Convention , volume CARDINAL , pages CARDINAL and DATE ) and DATE ( document ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL , page CARDINAL ) .

The new LAW ( CARDINAL ) and Schedule CARDINAL ) re - enacted , in substance , the powers contained in the Terrorists Order , retaining its definition of terrorism . Accordingly , the powers to make interim custody and detention orders , and the review thereof by a commissioner and the appeal tribunal , continued in the manner , on the conditions and subject to the procedure described in paragraph CARDINAL and CARDINAL above , with the significant differences that :

- the individual had to receive a written statement concerning the terrorist activities to be investigated by the commissioner CARDINAL ( rather than DATE before the hearing ;

- in addition to his optional power to refer , the Secretary of ORG had to refer to a commissioner the case of anyone held under a detention order for DATE since the making of the order or for DATE since the last review .

Section CARDINAL of the Act also provided that any constable might arrest without warrant a person whom he suspected of being a terrorist ; detention after arrest was limited to TIME . The Act conferred certain other powers of arrest ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) which are not in issue in the present case .

Figures for interim custody and detention orders ( under the Terrorists Order and LAW ) are :

- DATE to CARDINAL DATE : CARDINAL interim custody orders ( under the Terrorists Order ) ;

- DATE : CARDINAL individuals detained under the Terrorists Order and CARDINAL released ;

- DATE to CARDINAL DATE : the commissioners reviewed CARDINAL cases ( CARDINAL interim custody orders made under LAW ; CARDINAL former internments and CARDINAL former detentions under LAW ) ; they made CARDINAL detention orders and directed release in the remaining CARDINAL cases ;

- DATE to PERCENT : CARDINAL appeals were lodged with the detention appeal tribunal ; CARDINAL had been heard and CARDINAL releases directed .

With effect from DATE , LAW , based on the recommendations of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , made , inter alia , new provisions for the detention of terrorists which have not been the subject of the present case . The LAW reverted to the principle of detention by order of the Secretary of ORG , rather than of a commissioner , such order to be preceded by a report from a legally qualified Adviser .

As indicated in ORG communication of DATE to the Secretary - General of ORG , volume CARDINAL , page CARDINAL ) , on CARDINAL DATE the Secretary of ORG signed orders for the release of the last CARDINAL persons detained under the emergency legislation ; all were released forthwith except those remanded in custody on criminal charges or serving sentences of imprisonment . Since then , according to the data before the ORG , the power to make detention orders under LAW has not been exercised .

As recounted above at DATE and CARDINAL , on CARDINAL DATE and thereafter numerous persons in GPE were arrested and taken into custody by the security forces acting in pursuance of the emergency powers . The persons arrested were interrogated , usually by members of the ORG , in order to determine whether they should be interned and/or to compile information about the IRA . In all , CARDINAL persons were processed by the police at various holding centres from DATE until DATE . The holding centres were replaced in DATE by police offices in GPE and at FAC .

Allegations of ill - treatment have been made by the applicant Government in relation both to the initial arrests and to the subsequent interrogations . The applicant Government submitted written evidence to the Commission in respect of CARDINAL cases concerning incidents DATE .

The procedure followed for the purposes of ascertaining the facts ( LAW , sub - paragraph ( a ) , of the Convention ) ( article CARDINAL-a ) was one decided upon by the ORG and accepted by the Parties . The ORG examined in detail with medical reports and oral evidence CARDINAL " illustrative " cases selected at its request by the applicant Government . The Commission considered a further CARDINAL cases ( the so - called " CARDINAL cases " ) on which it had received medical reports and invited written comments ; it referred to the remaining cases .

The nature of the evidence submitted by ORG and the procedure followed by ORG in its investigation of such evidence are set out in some detail in the ORG ’s report . The ORG came to view that neither the witnesses from the security forces nor the case - witnesses put forward by the applicant Government had given accurate and complete accounts of what had happened . Consequently , where the allegations of ill - treatment were in dispute , the ORG treated as " the most important objective evidence " the medical findings which were not contested as such .

The following account of events is based on the information set out in the ORG ’s report and in the other documents before the ORG .

In order to protect the identity of certain persons , notably witnesses , the published version of the ORG ’s report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) incorporated changes to the original text ; these changes mainly took the form of designating such persons by letters and/or figures .

The Commission grouped the cases into CARDINAL categories , according to the place where the ill - treatment was said to have been inflicted , namely :

( CARDINAL ) the unidentified interrogation centre or centres ;

( CARDINAL ) Palace Barracks , GPE ;

( CARDINAL ) FAC ;

( CARDINAL ) Ballykinler Regional Holding Centre ; and

( CARDINAL ) various other miscellaneous places .

CARDINAL persons arrested on DATE and CARDINAL persons arrested in DATE were singled out and taken to CARDINAL or more unidentified centres . There , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , they were submitted to a form of " interrogation in depth " which involved the combined application of CARDINAL particular techniques .

These methods , sometimes termed " disorientation " or " sensory deprivation " techniques , were not used in any cases other than the CARDINAL so indicated above . It emerges from the ORG ’s establishment of the facts that the techniques consisted of :

( a ) wall - standing : forcing the detainees to remain for periods of TIME in a " stress position " , described by those who underwent it as being " spread eagled against the wall , with their fingers put high above the head against the wall , the legs spread apart and the feet back , causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers " ;

( b ) hooding : putting a black or navy coloured bag over the detainees’ heads and , at least initially , keeping it there all the time except during interrogation ;

( c ) subjection to noise : pending their interrogations , holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise ;

( d ) deprivation of sleep : pending their interrogations , depriving the detainees of sleep ;

( e ) deprivation of food and drink : subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations .

The Commission ’s findings as to the manner and effects of the application of these techniques on CARDINAL particular case - witnesses are referred to below at paragraph ORG .

From the start , it has been conceded by the respondent Government that the use of the CARDINAL techniques was authorised at " high level " . Although never committed to writing or authorised in any official document , the techniques had been orally taught to members of the ORG by ORG at a seminar held in DATE .

The CARDINAL operations of interrogation in depth by means of the CARDINAL techniques led to the obtaining of a considerable quantity of intelligence information , including the identification of QUANTITY members of both IRA factions and the discovery of individual responsibility for CARDINAL previously unexplained criminal incidents .

Reports alleging physical brutality and ill - treatment by the security forces were made public within DATE of Operation Demetrius ( described above at paragraph CARDINAL ) . A committee of enquiry under the chairmanship of Sir PERSON was appointed by ORG on DATE to investigate such allegations . Among the CARDINAL cases this ORG examined were CARDINAL cases of persons subjected to the CARDINAL techniques in DATE ; its findings were that interrogation in depth by means of the techniques constituted physical ill - treatment but not physical brutality as it understood that term . The ORG ’s report , adopted on DATE , was made public , as was a supplemental report of DATE by Sir PERSON in relation to CARDINAL further cases occurring in DATE and DATE , CARDINAL of which involved the techniques .

The ORG reports came under considerable criticism in GPE . On DATE , the NORP Home Secretary announced that a further ORG had been set up under the chairmanship of Lord PERSON of GPE to consider " whether , and if so in what respects , the procedures currently authorised for interrogation of persons suspected of terrorism and for their custody while subject to interrogation require amendment " .

The PERSON report , which was adopted on DATE , contained a majority and a minority opinion . The majority report concluded that the application of the techniques , subject to recommended safeguards against excessive use , need not be ruled out on moral grounds . On the other hand , the minority report by Lord PERSON disagreed that such interrogation procedures were morally justifiable , even in emergency terrorist conditions . Both the majority and the minority considered the methods to be illegal under domestic law , although the majority confined their view to LANGUAGE law and to " some if not all the techniques " .

The PERSON report was published on DATE . On DATE , the GPE Prime Minister stated in ORG :

" [ The ] Government , having reviewed the whole matter with great care and with reference to any future operations , have decided that the techniques ... will not be used in future as an aid to interrogation . "

He further declared :

" The statement that I have made covers all future circumstances . If a Government did decide ... that additional techniques were required for interrogation , then I think that ... they would probably have to come to the ORG and ask for the powers to do it . "

As foreshadowed in the Prime Minister ’s statement , directives expressly prohibiting the use of the techniques , whether singly or in combination were then issued to the security forces by the Government ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the hearing before the ORG on DATE , the GPE Attorney - General made the following declaration :

" The Government of GPE have considered the question of the use of the ‘ CARDINAL techniques’ with very great care and with particular regard to LAW . They now give this unqualified undertaking , that the ‘ CARDINAL techniques’ will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation . "

ORG referred to the Commission CARDINAL cases of persons submitted to the CARDINAL techniques during interrogation at the unidentified centre or centres DATE . A further case , that of T CARDINAL , considered in the ORG ’s report in the context of FAC , concerned the use of the CARDINAL techniques in DATE . ORG examined as illustrative the cases of T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL , which were among the CARDINAL cases investigated by ORG .

ORG . T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL were arrested on CARDINAL DATE during Operation Demetrius . DATE they were transferred from ORG to an unidentified interrogation centre where they were medically examined on arrival . Thereafter , with intermittent periods of respite , they were subjected to the CARDINAL techniques during CARDINAL or possibly DATE ; neither the PERSON or ORG nor ORG were able to establish the exact length of the periods of respite .

The Commission was satisfied that T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL were kept at the wall for different periods totalling TIME , but it did not consider it proved that the enforced stress position had lasted all the time they were at the wall . It stated in addition that the required posture caused physical pain and exhaustion . The Commission noted that , later on during his stay at the interrogation centre , T CARDINAL was allowed to take his hood off when he was alone in the room , provided that he turned his face to the wall . It was not found possible by the Commission to establish for what periods T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL had been without sleep , or to what extent they were deprived of nourishment and whether or not they were offered food but refused to take it .

The ORG found no physical injury to have resulted from the application of the CARDINAL techniques as such , but loss of weight by the CARDINAL case - witnesses and acute psychiatric symptoms developed by them during interrogation were recorded in the medical and other evidence . ORG , on the material before it , was unable to establish the exact degree of any psychiatric after - effects produced on T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL , but on the general level it was satisfied that some psychiatric after - effects in certain of the QUANTITY persons subjected to the techniques could not be excluded .

T CARDINAL claimed in addition to have been beaten and otherwise physically ill - treated , but the medical evidence before the Commission , as the delegates explained at the hearing before the ORG on DATE , gave reason to doubt that he had been assaulted to any severe degree , if at all . Accordingly , the Commission treated the allegations in regard to T CARDINAL as concerning the CARDINAL techniques only .

T CARDINAL similarly alleged that he was also assaulted in various ways at , or during transport to and from , the centre . On DATE he was medically examined on leaving the centre and also on his subsequent arrival at FAC where he was then detained until DATE . The medical reports of these examinations and photographs taken on DATE revealed on T CARDINAL ’s body bruising and contusions that had not been present on DATE . While not accepting all T CARDINAL ’s allegations , the Commission was " satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that certain of these injuries ... [ were ] the result of assaults committed on him by the security forces at the centre " . As a general inference from the facts established in T CARDINAL ’s case , the ORG also found it " probable that physical violence was sometimes used in the forcible application of the CARDINAL techniques " .

Although several other cases were referred to before the ORG by the applicant Government in connection with the unidentified interrogation centre or centres , no detailed allegations or findings are set out in the ORG ’s report except in the case of T CARDINAL which was CARDINAL of the " CARDINAL cases " . The medical evidence established that when leaving the centre and on entering FAC , T CARDINAL had suffered superficial bruising . The Commission ’s short assessment of this case , which it described as comparable to the case of T CARDINAL , was that " there exists a strong indication that the course of events was similar to that found in the illustrative [ case ] " .

T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL instituted civil proceedings in DATE to recover damages for wrongful imprisonment and assault ; their claims were settled in DATE and DATE respectively for £ MONEY and £ MONEY . The CARDINAL other individuals against whom the CARDINAL techniques were used have all received in settlement of their civil claims compensation ranging MONEY .

ORG , a military camp in GPE , County Down , on the outskirts of GPE , was used as a holding centre for DATE in DATE and then from DATE until DATE . During this period , when it was the main interrogation centre in GPE , CARDINAL persons from all over the province passed through FAC . The centre was operated jointly by the army and the ORG . Persons held there were photographed immediately after arriving and , from DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , examined by a doctor on entry as well as departure .

The interrogations - records of which were kept for filing – were conducted solely by police , usually CARDINAL in number , from the Special Branch of the ORG . These men , who were independent of the uniformed ORG , came under the responsibility of an officer in charge with the rank of inspector . Many of them interrogated prisoners both at FAC and at FAC on a rotating system .

A total of CARDINAL cases concerned with ORG were submitted to the ORG by the applicant ORG . The ORG examined in detail CARDINAL illustrative cases , all relating to the period DATE . It also considered a further QUANTITY cases , included in the " CARDINAL cases " ; of these CARDINAL cases , CARDINAL covered DATE while CARDINAL concerned events occurring in DATE and DATE .

These CARDINAL men were all arrested early on DATE at their homes in GPE and taken to ORG for interrogation . They were photographed and examined by an army doctor immediately after their arrest ; apart from CARDINAL small scar , no injuries were apparently found . DATE they were transferred together from ORG to FAC . They all alleged that at various times they had been made to stand spread eagled against a wall and had been severely beaten or otherwise physically ill - treated , particularly during interrogations . On their arrival at FAC , a prison doctor found contusions and bruising on CARDINAL of the men ; on DATE , another doctor found similar injuries on the fourth man . In the ORG ’s view , this medical evidence made " it highly probable that all the CARDINAL received their injuries while at FAC " .

Despite the absolute denials given in evidence by witnesses from the security forces at FAC , the Commission held the following facts , amongst others , to be established beyond reasonable doubt :

" The CARDINAL men ... were severely beaten by members of the security forces ... The beating was not occasional but it was applied in a sort of scheme in order to make them speak ... "

Each man instituted civil proceedings for damages and rejected the offer of £ MONEY made in settlement of his claim .

T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL were arrested together by an army patrol in a GPE street on TIME DATE . They were brought to ORG for interrogation and held there until TIME of DATE when they were transferred to FAC . On arrival at the latter institution , they were examined by a prison doctor . T CARDINAL was immediately transported to the prison hospital wing where he spent DATE . Both men soon made statements alleging ill - treatment at FAC . T CARDINAL , for instance , claimed that he had been made to stand spread eagled against a wall while being questioned by a Special Branch man who was kicking him continuously on the insides of the legs . They obtained legal assistance and were further medically examined .

The medical evidence disclosed injuries described as " substantial " in T CARDINAL ’s case and " massive " in T CARDINAL ’s case . ORG concluded that " the proved injuries must have been caused while the CARDINAL men were at FAC " . CARDINAL members of the security forces at the centre gave evidence completely denying any knowledge of the injuries or their causes , but these denials were not believed by the Commission . While viewing certain of the CARDINAL men ’s assertions as exaggerated , invented or improbable , the ORG made the following finding :

" T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL ... were subjected to physical violence , especially kicking and beating , during or between a series of ‘ interviews’ conducted by GPE . "

Civil proceedings seeking damages were instituted by T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL ; their claims were settled for £ MONEY and £ CARDINAL respectively . They also , it seems , complained to the police , but no evidence was produced to the Commission of a police enquiry into their complaints .

These CARDINAL cases , although not directly connected , have certain similarities and were grouped together by the Commission .

T CARDINAL was arrested at his home in TIME of DATE and taken by soldiers to FAC . He was questioned several times that day . At TIME he was released without being charged . TIME , he was examined by a general practitioner who found what he considered to be rather superficial injuries .

T CARDINAL alleged that he had been kicked and punched while being made to stand against the wall with his weight on his fingertips . These allegations were completely denied by witnesses from the police . No corroborated evidence was produced by either side to confirm or rebut the suggestion made by police witnesses that T CARDINAL might have received his injuries after his release while being " questioned " by the IRA . T CARDINAL did concede having had some previous contacts , albeit superficial and undesired , with IRA members . The ORG found inter alia :

" It can not ... be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that [ T CARDINAL ] ... received these injuries in the way alleged by him . "

Although T CARDINAL said that he had brought a civil action for damages , there is no information as to the outcome of those proceedings . He further stated that after complaint to the ORG , he was told that his allegations had been investigated but found to be unsubstantiated .

T CARDINAL was arrested by an army patrol in the street near his home in the afternoon of QUANTITY DATE . He was taken by army vehicle first to a police station , where he stayed for TIME , and then on to FAC for questioning . He was released DATE . He alleged that he had been kicked and beaten by soldiers when lying on the floor of the army vehicle and thereafter beaten during interrogation by the police at FAC . Both the army and the police witnesses denied these allegations .

DATE after his release , T CARDINAL saw his family doctor who found extensive bruising to his body . On DATE , he was admitted to hospital where he remained under observation for DATE .

The Commission considered that the medical evidence was difficult to reconcile with the account given by T CARDINAL of his alleged ill - treatment . The findings of the Commission included the following :

" Bearing in mind that TIME elapsed from his release until his medical examination , the statements of the soldiers and some doubt about T CARDINAL ’s reliability , it can not be concluded , solely on T CARDINAL ’s own statements , that he received these injuries at the hands of the army or the police . "

There is no evidence of any civil action brought by T CARDINAL or of any army investigation into complaints he apparently made ; the results of a police enquiry are not known .

T CARDINAL was arrested at his house TIME of CARDINAL DATE and subsequently taken to ORG for interrogation . DATE a detention order was served on him and he was transferred to FAC . T CARDINAL alleged that while at the interrogation centre he was subjected to what the Commission terms " comparatively trivial beatings " .

He was medically examined on arrival at FAC , when entering FAC and on DATE by his family doctor who saw him in prison . The latter CARDINAL examinations revealed that T CARDINAL had suffered a perforation to the right eardrum and some minor bruising . Despite absolute denials on the part of the CARDINAL witnesses from the security forces , the ORG found it proved beyond reasonable doubt that T CARDINAL ’s injuries could not have been caused in any way materially different from that described in his evidence . In the ORG ’s view , it was to be taken as established that the acts complained of occurred at FAC .

T CARDINAL did not , it seems , institute civil proceedings for damages . On the other hand , he complained through his lawyer against a number of police officers , but no evidence was produced by the respondent Government of any real police investigation .

Within this group , there are CARDINAL cases ( T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL and CARDINAL other ) raising allegations of ill - treatment by the army during transport to ORG and by the police during interrogation there . The case of T CARDINAL had already been mentioned in connection with the unidentified centre or centres ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The medical reports show that the persons concerned had sustained injuries in varying degrees . No evidence , though , was obtained from the respondent Government . ORG , while therefore feeling it unsafe to make any findings on the basis of the medical reports alone , stated in its short assessment :

" Nevertheless , in those cases in which the victims were detained following their interrogation and were medically examined shortly after their committal to detention ( the cases of T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL ) , there exists a strong indication that the course of events was similar to that found in the illustrative cases . "

T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL accepted sums of £ CARDINAL , £ CARDINAL and £ CARDINAL respectively in settlement of civil claims brought . At the time of the ORG ’s report , actions for damages were still pending in the cases of T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL ; a substantial sum was ultimately received by the former person as a victim of the CARDINAL techniques ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the absence of corroborative , including medical , evidence , the Commission did not find it possible to examine further another CARDINAL cases concerning FAC . It merely confirmed that allegations of ill - treatment had been made and that , in some cases , compensation had been paid .

The ORG considered on a number of grounds that the police officers in command at FAC at the relevant time could not have been ignorant of the acts of ill - treatment found to have been committed . Yet , on their own evidence , these officers took no action to prevent the occurrence or repetition of such ill - treatment .

Knowledge on the part of the higher authorities of allegations regarding this centre was inferred by the ORG from various facts . Nevertheless , no evidence of police investigations into these allegations was produced to the ORG and , apart from Sir PERSON " supplemental " report into CARDINAL ORG cases ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , no general enquiry took place . Furthermore , no disciplinary or criminal proceedings seem to have been instituted against any of the police officers who either committed or failed to react against the acts established . No special instructions relating to the proper treatment of persons in custody were issued to the ORG until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Through their inaction , the authorities in GPE were held by the Commission to have shown indifference towards the treatment of prisoners at FAC in DATE .

This army camp on the outskirts of GPE , adjacent to FAC , was used as a regional centre for holding and interrogating suspects , CARDINAL of whom passed through it in DATE . It was temporarily closed in DATE and re - opened in DATE as a police holding centre . The arrangements at PERSON for receiving , detaining , interrogating and releasing suspects were essentially the same as at FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Of CARDINAL cases involving allegations of ill - treatment at PERSON , the Commission examined in detail as illustrative that of T CARDINAL . It found that this NORP , aged over DATE and arrested in connection with the possession of arms and a radio aerial , had been severely injured on CARDINAL DATE by army personnel during transport to PERSON and following his arrival there . He had been insulted , kicked , beaten and dragged by the hair and his evidence had been corroborated by that of T CARDINAL who had been arrested at the same time . T CARDINAL ’s ill - treatment was not connected with his formal interrogation which was correctly conducted by the Special Branch . Although the army doctor at PERSON treated T CARDINAL for a diabetic condition , the Commission considered the medical examination inadequate since no notice was taken of the injuries which were observed later by other doctors .

T CARDINAL instituted civil proceedings for damages and the respondent Government indicated to the Commission that his action would certainly be settled . He had also complained immediately to the ORG but , according to the applicant Government , DATE before he was told that no action was going to be taken against the army ; ORG attributed the impossibility of initiating a prosecution to T CARDINAL ’s inability to identify his assailants .

ORG also considered , from the " CARDINAL cases " , the cases of T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL , CARDINAL of which dated from DATE , CARDINAL from DATE and CARDINAL from DATE . All these persons had been released after questioning , except T DATE who had been charged and presumably detained thereafter . They alleged that they had been assaulted by army personnel on arrest and during transport to PERSON ; T CARDINAL also complained of ill - treatment by the Special Branch during interrogation . Each case was submitted by ORG by means of a medical report and also , except for T CARDINAL , the complainant ’s own statement ; no evidence was obtained from the respondent Government . A medical examination , made within TIME of release or detention , revealed injuries to each individual .

In the ORG ’s view :

( a ) it was fairly safe to conclude that certain of T CARDINAL ’s and T CARDINAL ’s injuries had been caused as alleged , particularly in the case of T CARDINAL , where the circumstances had been examined in connection with T CARDINAL ’s case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . A strong probability also existed for T CARDINAL whose claim for damages was later settled for £ MONEY ;

( b ) although injuries had been found on T CARDINAL , it would be difficult to consider the facts established ;

( c ) the allegations and injuries in the case of T CARDINAL were comparable to those in the Palace Barracks cases ; reference was made to the ORG ’s assessment of some of the " CARDINAL cases " relating to that place ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In the absence of corroborative , including medical , evidence , the Commission did not find it possible to examine further CARDINAL cases concerning PERSON . It merely confirmed that allegations of ill - treatment had been made and that , in some cases , compensation had been paid .

PERSON was an army camp in GPE used in DATE for holding and interrogating some of those arrested during Operation Demetrius ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was under the overall authority of the ORG , the army being responsible for security and the Special Branch conducting the interrogations . On CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL persons were brought to PERSON of whom , by DATE , DATE had been removed to a place of detention and the remainder released .

The applicant Government requested the ORG to make findings on all the CARDINAL cases in respect of which they had filed statements alleging ill - treatment at the camp .

Prior to the ORG ’s enquiry , conditions at PERSON in DATE had been examined by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and by ORG in the PERSON case . ORG considered that certain exercises which detainees had been made to do " under some degree of compulsion " must have caused hardship but were the result of lack of judgment rather than an intention to hurt or degrade ; it accordingly made no findings of deliberate ill - treatment . In the PERSON case , on the other hand , the judge rejected defence evidence , in particular as to the origin of the exercises , and concluded that the treatment of persons held at PERSON was " deliberate , unlawful and harsh " ; he awarded the plaintiff £ MONEY , the maximum amount within his jurisdiction .

The ORG examined , as illustrative , the case of T CARDINAL and found that :

( a ) he and other persons arrested were made ( in some cases before medical examination ) to do exercises which caused considerable strain and hardship , especially to the elderly and those in poor physical condition ;

( b ) the exercises consisted partly of sitting on the floor with the legs outstretched and the hands raised high above , or clasped behind , the head , and partly of kneeling on the floor with the forehead touching the ground and the hands clasped behind the back ;

( c ) it was not possible to ascertain the exact length of time during which , or the degree of compulsion with which , the exercises were enforced ;

( d ) allegations , concerning both T CARDINAL and others , of specific incidents of violence and of the use of considerable force had not been established ;

( e ) the camp had been swept out , and beds removed for security reasons , before persons arrested arrived ; for a purpose not sufficiently explained , bedding was provided only for those who had been interrogated .

None of the " CARDINAL cases " concerned PERSON . There is no separate section in the ORG ’s report on the remaining CARDINAL cases relating to that centre but findings on the general conditions there were made within the context of T CARDINAL ’s case .

CARDINAL cases involving allegations of ill - treatment at miscellaneous places were referred to the Commission by the applicant Government . The allegations included beating and assaults by the army or the police at army posts , police stations , a prison , in the street , at home or during transport at dates falling DATE . CARDINAL of these cases were in connection with interrogation . The Commission examined in detail as illustrative the cases of T CARDINAL , T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL .

The ORG found that on DATE , without provocation or resistance , this civilian had been severely assaulted and injured in a street in GPE by a corporal effecting his arrest . When it was realised that his arrest had been a mistake , he was discharged with apologies , having been given medical treatment . Neither his evidence nor the medical evidence was disputed and the respondent Government called no witnesses .

The soldier in question was detained for DATE and then admonished . T CARDINAL ’s claim for damages was settled for £ MONEY .

The ORG found that , after his arrest on DATE , this civilian had been severely assaulted and injured by a number of soldiers during interrogation at FAC , GPE . Neither the main facts nor medical evidence of physical injuries were disputed , although medical opinion differed concerning mental after - effects . The respondent Government called no witnesses to rebut the charges of physical ill - treatment . Additional allegations of harassment by soldiers after the event were found by the Commission to be neither proved nor disproved .

T CARDINAL ’s claim for damages was settled for £ MONEY . He also lodged a complaint with the ORG which was still under investigation when the Commission heard evidence on his case ; the respondent Government stated that they did not know the reason for the delay .

T CARDINAL alleged that he was kicked , punched and hooded by the army at ORG , GPE , on CARDINAL DATE . He was too young to be detained but , after arrest and questioning , he was taken , allegedly for identification purposes , to various army posts .

A claim by T CARDINAL for damages was settled in the sum of £ CARDINAL . His complaint to the ORG was unsuccessful .

In the light of its review of the medical evidence and the evidence of the security force witnesses and of T CARDINAL , the Commission concluded that T CARDINAL ’s allegations were not sufficiently established .

From these cases , the ORG considered CARDINAL on which the Parties had commented . It took the view that the evidence , in the shape of medical reports accompanied in some cases by a statement from the complainant , did not make it possible to establish beyond reasonable doubt the cause of the injuries .

In the absence of corroborative , including medical , evidence , the Commission did not find it possible to examine further the remaining CARDINAL cases . It merely confirmed that allegations of ill - treatment had been made and that , in some cases , compensation had been paid .

From DATE , the army rule was that the person arrested and the arresting soldier were to be photographed together . With regard to the practice followed during LOC , ORG noted that a photograph was taken of each person admitted to a regional holding centre and that on entry to PERSON and PERSON , though not to GPE , a medical examination was carried out and its result recorded .

As from DATE , every individual brought to a holding centre was medically examined on arrival and departure . Medical staff was instructed to submit reports whenever there was evidence of a complaint of ill - treatment . Furthermore , after a certain time , records were kept of the prisoner ’s condition during his progress through interrogation .

It would appear that at the beginning of the internment operation reliance was simply placed on the normal regulations requiring humane treatment and forbidding the use of violence .

Following the PERSON report and the Prime Minister ’s statement to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a directive on interrogation was issued prohibiting the use of coercion and , in particular , of the CARDINAL techniques . In addition , it made mandatory medical examinations , the keeping of comprehensive records and the immediate reporting of any complaints of ill - treatment . In DATE , army instructions and the RUC Force Order CARDINAL/CARDINAL , concerning respectively arrests under LAW and the treatment of prisoners , directed that excessive force should never be used . Shortly after the introduction of direct rule , the GPE Attorney - General gave a ministerial directive on the proper treatment of persons in custody , making it clear that where any form of ill - treatment was reported DATE Prosecutions would prosecute . Further army and ORG instructions of DATE in respect of arrest and interrogation enjoined the proper and humane treatment of prisoners ; they strictly forbade resort to violence , the CARDINAL techniques , threats or insults and concluded with a prohibition similar to LAW . In DATE new instructions with regard to arrests by the army re - emphasised the need for correct behaviour .

The respondent Government submitted that steps had been taken for the diffusion and enforcement at all levels of these orders and directives . However , both the ORG and the applicant Government considered that there was a lack of satisfactory evidence as to how the regulations were implemented and obeyed in practice .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph DATE above ) contained provisions designed to exclude as evidence before an ordinary criminal court statements by an accused obtained by torture or inhuman or degrading treatment ; the section did not apply to the extrajudicial procedures or to statements by third parties .

Under LAW ( GPE ) DATE , an investigation department within the ORG had been set up to report to the Chief Constable on all complaints against the police whatever their source . An official committee of CARDINAL members of ORG , including CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP , examined DATE the records of complaints kept by the Chief Constable .

Where a serious criminal offence was disclosed , reports were submitted to the Attorney - General for GPE or , after the introduction of direct rule , to ORG in GPE , a newly - created office , for decision whether to prosecute . On DATE , the GPE Attorney - General instructed ORG to direct the ORG to investigate and report on any circumstances which might involve the commission of a criminal offence by a member of the security forces . From DATE , all completed investigations of both police officers and army personnel had to be sent to ORG .

In DATE , new disciplinary regulations brought the arrangements for the investigation of complaints against the ORG into line with the arrangements existing elsewhere in GPE . In DATE , a fresh unit was established within the ORG under the direct control of the Deputy Chief Constable to be responsible for the investigation of complaints .

ORG in its report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , while expressing itself satisfied that full investigations were made , nevertheless found a widespread belief in GPE that complaints against members of the security forces were not taken seriously . It therefore recommended the setting up of an independent means of investigating complaints .

The Police ( GPE ) Order DATE established a completely independent ORG for GPE with supervisory functions in the matter .

The policy of the General Officer Commanding , as stated in the evidence before the ORG , was that every complaint should be investigated . An investigator was automatically appointed as soon as an incident was reported , even before a formal complaint had been made . As with the ORG , notice was also taken of allegations in the press or from third parties .

It would seem that in the early stages of the emergency complaints against soldiers were handled by the army authorities themselves ; later on , CARDINAL ORG officers were appointed to oversee army enquiries and subsequently investigations were actually carried out by the ORG , at least where there appeared to be a serious criminal offence . In addition , complainants were encouraged to channel their complaints through the police . On DATE a joint army / ORG investigation team was created .

Complaints against the army were referred to an outside authority - ORG as from DATE for directions whether to prosecute .

DATE and DATE , CARDINAL complaints against the police were made , CARDINAL alleging ill - treatment or assault ; the CARDINAL prosecutions for assault resulted in CARDINAL convictions leading to fines and , in CARDINAL case , a conditional discharge .

As regards the army , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL complaints in respect of assaults or shootings had been received and CARDINAL cases of alleged assault were submitted to ORG . By DATE , directions to prosecute had been given in CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL cases then dealt with .

Overall , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL members of the security forces were prosecuted for assault at the direction of ORG and CARDINAL were convicted .

Soon after complaints relating to the arrests carried out on CARDINAL DATE became known , CARDINAL soldiers , including CARDINAL who had left GPE , were interviewed in order to determine their role in the arrest operation . The ORG ’s report also mentions a few other specific examples of members of the security forces being investigated or disciplined , but these examples are not connected with the cases submitted by the applicant Government . No information of any investigation into the submitted cases was vouchsafed to the ORG by the respondent Government except in relation to the illustrative cases . Even as regards the illustrative cases , the ORG had before it just CARDINAL item of direct evidence - the LOC reports , filed by the applicant Government - and it noted that in none of them had the authorities carried out a thorough investigation of the allegations of ill - treatment ; evidence as to disciplinary action or prosecution was furnished to the ORG in CARDINAL case alone , that of T CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Procedures to obtain compensation were available before the domestic courts to all persons who considered themselves to have been ill - treated by the security forces . There is no suggestion that the domestic courts were or are anything other than independent , fair and impartial . The respondent Government have emphasised the difference between domestic civil and criminal law . Under the former the authorities are liable for any wrongful act , established on the balance of probabilities , committed in the course of their duty by soldiers or policemen , whether individually identified or not . The criminal law , in contrast , requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of an identified individual . Like any plaintiff in a civil action , a plaintiff alleging ill - treatment by the security forces was entitled to obtain disclosure of relevant documents , for example medical reports , in the possession of the defendant authorities .

DATE and DATE , compensation totalling £ MONEY had been paid in settlement of CARDINAL civil claims for wrongful arrest , false imprisonment , assault and battery , leaving CARDINAL actions still outstanding . At the time of the ORG ’s report , compensation , ranging from MONEY , had been paid in settlement of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cases submitted by the applicant Government . In the only case of alleged physical ill - treatment which seems to have been fought , namely the case of PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the judge disbelieved the evidence of the security forces .