The Irish Government’s request for revision of the judgement in Ireland v UK 5310/71 1978 has been dismissed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on the grounds that alleged new facts surrounding the case would not have had any decisive influence on the ruling of the original judgement.
In 1971, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, 14 men were detained by the British Army and subjected to five different interrogation techniques; wall-standing, hooding, subjection to noise, deprivation of sleep and deprivation of food and drink. The European Commission of Human Rights ruled that this mistreatment was in fact torture but this was overturned by the ECtHR, which ruled that while these interrogation practices amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, they did not constitute torture.
In 2014, the Irish Government came into possession of documents which were not known to the Court at the time of the judgement and thus requested review of the ECtHR’s decision claiming that had this information been available at the time of the case, it may have had a decisive influence on the outcome.
The revision was sought on the grounds that, as revealed by the documents, a psychiatric expert used by the UK Government misled the Commission as to the severity of the long term effects that resulted from the treatment during the original proceedings and that the UK Government withheld important information in order to curtail an inquiry into the techniques used.
Upon receiving the request, the ECtHR had to consider whether the documents demonstrated new facts and if so, would these alleged new facts have had a decisive influence on the original judgement. The ECtHR deemed that the fact that the UK Government withheld information was not sufficient enough to establish new factual evidence, as the Court had already expressed its dissatisfaction with the UK’s lack of cooperation during the original proceedings. The ECtHR also doubted whether the documents contained unknown facts surrounding the misleading psychiatric expert.
During the original judgement, the reasoning for the decision was that the difference between torture and inhuman and degrading treatment depended on the intensity of the suffering caused. Without a strong indication that very serious and cruel suffering occurred, the ECtHR could not deduce that the techniques qualified as tortuous. The issue of possible long-term and severe effects as a result of said treatment was not deemed to be a decisive element during the case and as a result, the facts surrounding the psychiatrist’s attempts at misleading the Commission were not viewed to be substantial enough to effect the original decision.
Therefore, based on this assessment, the ECtHR concluded that the Irish Government had not sufficiently proven that these new facts were unknown to the Court at the time of the case and that these facts would have had a decisive influence on the original judgement.
In her dissenting opinion Judge O’Leary was critical of the narrow approach adopted by the majority in reaching their decision regarding the revision judgement. Rather, consideration of established case law on the duty of Contracting Parties to cooperate with the Convention institutions and on the respective roles of those institutions at the relevant times as regards the establishment of facts. While Judge O’Leary recognises there is a need for legal certainty this had to be balanced appropriately against the revision of erroneous judgements. While the majority opined that only absolute certainly as to an alternative finding of torture given the new material disclosed would suffice to overturn the original judgement. Judge O’Leary queries on what basis this standard is being suggested. Finally, Judge O’Leary disagreed with the interpretation applied to ‘decisive influence’ adopted by the majority regarding the new facts.
For a copy of the judgement click here.
Further commentary on the case can be accessed here and here.