ECtHR rules Hooded Men were not tortured, but Irish judge dissents

Ireland sought the revision in 2014 after an RTÉ programme revealed the UK government had withheld evidence regarding the long-term impact of the “five techniques” used to interrogate the “Hooded Men”.

However, in the majority judgment, the ECtHR said it “doubts whether the documents submitted by the applicant Government in support of the first ground of revision contain sufficient prima facie evidence of the alleged new fact and considers that the documents submitted in support of the second ground did not demonstrate facts which were ‘unknown’ to the Court when it delivered the original judgment”.

It adds: “Even assuming that the documents submitted in support of the first ground for revision demonstrate the fact alleged, namely that Dr L. misled the Commission as regards the effects of the five techniques, the Court considers that it cannot be said that it might have had a decisive influence on the Court’s finding in the original judgment that the use of the five techniques constituted a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention but did not constitute a practice of torture within the meaning of that provision.”

Judge Síofra O’Leary, who joined the court in 2015, wrote in her dissenting opinion: “The majority has opted for an extremely narrow version of what the Court was dealing with in 1976-1978 and has excluded or severely narrowed the relevance of the Commission and Court proceedings which led to the two concluding paragraphs of the original judgment on which almost exclusive reliance is placed.”

She said it was “difficult to avoid the impression” that the ECtHR had “sought to shelter itself” behind the principle of legal certainty.

She added the ruling would “discourage Member States from invoking Article 33 of the Convention and, regrettably, encourage future respondent States with reference to which that article may be invoked”.