Documentation Centre Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM)
Achter Sint Pieter 200, 3512 HT Utrecht, The Netherlands, telephone: +31 30 2537038, email: email@example.com
We regret to inform you that the Documentation Centre of SIM, including its databases will be closed in the near future. Due to changing circumstances, such as the increasing amount of information available elsewhere and the investments that would be required to maintain substantive added value, this decision has been taken.
This means that SIM's databases will be no longer be updated and that they will go offline on 1 January 2015 or earlier if circumstances so require.
Thank you for using our databases.
|Publication:||1997-I, no. 30|
|Title:||Findlay v. The United Kingdom|
|Respondent:||The United Kingdom|
|Date of reference by Commission:||08-12-1995|
|Date of reference by State:|
|Date of Judgment:||25-02-1997|
|Conclusion:||Violation of article 6-1|
Compensation awarded for costs and expenses
This case concerns the independence and the impartiality of a court-martial (Army Act 1955). Pending the proceedings before the Court the United Kingdom had made changes to the legislation at issue. With respect to the new legislation the Court held that it could not rule on legislation in abstracto, but it noted with satisfaction the changes made to the court-martial system by the Armed Forces Act 1996. With respect the applicability of Article 6(1) the Court concluded that this article was clearly applicable since the proceedings involved the determination of a sentence following a guilty plea. On the compliance with the requirements of Article 6(1) the Court held that the convening officer was central to the prosecution and was closely linked to the prosecuting authorities. Inter alia, he decided which charges should be brought, he convened the court-martial, he appointed members of prosecuting and defending officers. The members of the court-martial were all military personnel subordinate in rank to the convening officer who, as confirming officer, could vary the sentence imposed. The defects could not be corrected by subsequent review proceedings since the applicant was entitled to the first instance tribunal meeting requirements of Article 6(1). The Court concluded that there had been a violation.
|Last Modified: 13-01-2014 16:18:19 (Documentation SIM)