Lambayan, Jeff Gerard P.

PIL FRI 6:00 PM – 9:00 PM

CASE OF IRELAND V. UNITED KINGDOM

STRASBOURG
18 JANUARY 1978

FACTS:
Prior to 1922, the entire island of Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. However,
because of certain complicated political events, the island was divided into two (2) separate
nations namely: The Irish Republic and the Northern Island. For the Northern Ireland, it consists
of two communities divided by deep and long-standing antagonisms. One community is
variously termed Protestant, Unionist or Loyalist, the other is generally labelled as Catholic,
Republican or Nationalist. The now traditional antagonism between the two groups is based both
on religion and on social, economic and political differences. In particular, the Protestant
community has consistently opposed the idea of a united Ireland independent of the United
Kingdom, whereas the Catholic community has traditionally supported it.
Despite the partition, the strain in the relationship between the Protestants and Catholic in
North Ireland remained tense and aggressive. Eventually, the situation escalated. There was the
cloth of violence between the Protestants, who supported the dependency of the island to the UK,
and the Irish Republican Army (IRA) who supported the united and independent Ireland. 1 It was
against the background outlined above that on 9 August 1971 the Northern Ireland Government
brought into operation extrajudicial measures of detention and internment of suspected terrorists.
This policy2, even though it points at “terrorists” in general, was regarded as a temporary
measure primarily aimed at breaking the influence of the IRA. The security forces did not judge
at this stage that there was any serious threat coming from the Loyalist quarter.
These extrajudicial measures comprised the notorious “five techniques” used on the
prisoners. These are the following:
1. Wall standing;
2. Hooding;
3. Subjection to continuous loud and noise;
1
The Irish Republican Army (IRA) is a clandestine organization with quasi-military dispositions. Formed during the
troubles prior to the partition of the island and illegal in the United Kingdom as well as in the Republic of Ireland.
Obtained from: Case of Ireland v. United Kingdom.
2
Operation Demetrius is a series of extrajudicial measures of detention and internment of suspected terrorists. Iis
not a selective maneuver aimed at individuals but a "sweeping-up" exercise directed against the IRA organization as
a whole. Obtained from: Ibid
 4. Deprivation of sleep; and
5. Deprivation of food and drink
The police used the five techniques on fourteen persons in 1971. The five techniques
were applied in combination, with premeditation and for hours at a stretch; they caused, if not
actual bodily injury, at least intense physical and mental suffering to the persons subjected
thereto and also led to acute psychiatric disturbances during interrogation
Three 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 Catholic strongholds where terrorists, unlike the police, could operate in comparative
safety. Thirdly, the ease of escape across the territorial border between Northern Ireland and the
Republic of Ireland presented difficulties of control.

Applicant’s submission:
As a consequence, the Irish government strongly condemned the actions of the
respondent government. The former alleged that there were extensive breaches committed by the
respondent in accordance with European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically
Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 14 (art. 1, art. 2, art. 3, art. 5, art. 6, art. 14) of the Convention.
Accordingly, the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim’s conduct. Unlike most of the substantive
clauses of the Convention and of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4 (P1, P4), Article 3 (art. 3) makes no
provision for exceptions and, under Article 15 para. 2 (art. 15-2), there can be no derogation
therefrom even in the event of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation.
Respondent’s Response:
Respondent pointed that Article 15 (art. 15) comes into play "in time of war or other
public emergency threatening the life of the nation". The existence of such an emergency is
perfectly clear from the facts summarized above (paragraphs 12 and 29-75) and was not
questioned by anyone before either the Commission or the Court. The crisis experienced at the
time by the six counties therefore comes within the ambit of Article 15 (art. 15). With this, The
Contracting States may make use of their right of derogation "to the extent strictly required by
the exigencies of the situation".
ISSUE:
Whether, under the European Convention on Human rights, the extrajudicial measures by
respondent to contain and stop the unfortunate events that occurred in the island violated the said
convention and as such establishes liability on the respondent.
RULING:
Yes. The European Court of Human Rights found that the five techniques caused “intense
physical and mental suffering to the persons subjected thereto and also led to acute psychiatric
disturbances during interrogation,” but did not necessarily cause actual bodily injury. General
Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1975, which declares: "Torture constitutes an
aggravated and deliberate form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". As
such, the Court concluded that the five techniques breached Article 3 as they amounted to
“inhuman and degrading treatment” and not torture. Although the five techniques, as applied in
combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object
was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they
were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty
implied by the word torture as so understood. To distinguish between “inhuman and degrading
treatment” and “torture”, the Court looked at “the intensity of the suffering inflicted,” finding
that there was a special “stigma” associated with the notion of “torture”, which causes very
serious and cruel suffering
The Court determined that although Article 5 might have been breached, the existence of
an emergency that would permit a derogation “is perfectly clear from the facts,” concluding that
no breach had occurred. Being confronted with a massive wave of violence and intimidation, the
Northern Ireland Government and then, after the introduction of direct rule (30 March 1972), the
British Government were reasonably entitled to consider that normal legislation offered
insufficient resources for the campaign against terrorism and that recourse to measures outside
the scope of the ordinary law, in the shape of extrajudicial deprivation of liberty, was called for.
The court holds by sixteen votes to one that, although the practice followed in Northern Ireland
from 9 August 1971 to March 1975 in the application of the legislation providing for
extrajudicial deprivation of liberty entailed derogations from paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5 (art.
5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-3, art. 5-4), it is not established that the said derogations exceeded the extent
strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, within the meaning of Article 15 para. 1 (art.
15-1).
The Court found that Article 6 overlapped with Article 5, meaning that no further
consideration was required. The court holds unanimously that the derogations from Article 6 (art.
6), assuming it to be applicable in the present case, are compatible with Article 15 (art. 15).
Lastly, as the IRA perpetrated the majority of the violence, the Court concluded that there was no
tacit breach of Article 14.