(Plenary) The applicants who had been detained without trial, challenged the derogation for the Convention by the respondent in respect of terrorist associated activity in Northern Ireland and on the mainland.
Held: The derogation in respect of the suspension of rights of detained terrorist suspects was justified by and within the margin of appreciation allowed for, the government’s assessment of the need to defend society: ‘in exercising its supervision the Court must give appropriate weight to such relevant factors as the nature of the rights affected by the derogation, the circumstances leading to, and the duration of, the emergency situation.’
Hudoc Derogation of Art. 5-3 satisfies the requirements of Art. 15; No violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13
ECHR Judgment (Merits) – Derogation of Art. 5-3 satisfies the requirements of Art. 15; No violation of Art. 5-5; No violation of Art. 13.
R Ryssdal P
Times 28-May-1993, Independent 28-May-1993, 5/1992/350/423-424, 14553/89, [1993] ECHR 21, 14554/89, (1993) 17 EHRR 539, (2006) 43 EHRR SE10, (1994) 17 EHRR 539
Worldlii, Bailii
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Human Rights, Prisons
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.165252
