Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Hugh Jordan v. The United Kingdom

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Human Rights Case Digest

Investigations capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible must be undertaken into allegations of unlawful killings. If the aims of fact finding, criminal investigation and prosecution were carried out or shared between several authorities, the requirements of Article 2 might be satisfied if, while seeking to take into account other legitimate interests such as national security or the protection of material relevant to other investigations, they provided for the necessary safeguards in an accessible and effective manner. However, in all four cases, the available procedures had not struck the right balance. The shortcomings in transparency and effectiveness identified ran counter to the purpose identified by the domestic courts of allaying suspicions and rumours. Proper procedures for ensuring the accountability of agents of the State were indispensable in maintaining public confidence and meeting the legitimate concerns that might arise from the use of lethal force.

Where a general policy or measure had disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group, it was not excluded that this might be considered as discriminatory notwithstanding that it is not specifically aimed or directed at that group. However, statistics could not in themselves disclose a practice which could be classified as discriminatory. Even though statistically it appeared that the majority of people shot by the security forces were from the Catholic or nationalist community, there was no evidence before the Court which would entitle it to conclude that any of the killings, save the four which resulted in convictions, involved the unlawful or excessive use of force by members of the security forces.

10.1163/157181301760596316
/content/journals/10.1163/157181301760596316
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
6
3
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181301760596316
Loading

Data & Media loading...

http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1163/157181301760596316
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1163/157181301760596316
2001-08-01
2016-12-06

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Human Rights Case Digest — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation