Patrick Shanaghan v the United Kingdom - The Pat Finucane Centre

SHANAGHAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 1
In the case of Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. COSTA, President,
Mr W. FUHRMANN,
Mr L. LOUCAIDES,
Mrs F. TULKENS,
Mr. K. JUNGWIERT,
Sir Nicolas BRATZA,
Mr K. TRAJA, judges,
and Mrs S. DOLLÉ, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2000 and on 11 April 2001,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 37715/97) against the
United Kingdom lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights
(“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by an Irish national, Mrs Mary Theresa Shanaghan (“the applicant”), on
3 October 1996.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by
Mr P. Mageean and Mr D. Korff, lawyers practising in the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr C. Whomersley of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
3. The applicant alleged that her son Patrick Shanaghan was killed by an
unknown gunman in circumstances disclosing collusion by members of the
security forces and that there was an inadequate investigation into his death.
She invoked Articles 2, 13 and 14 of the Convention.
4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998,
when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of
Protocol No. 11).
5. The application was allocated to the Third Section of the Court
(Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that
would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted
as provided in Rule 26 § 1 of the Rules of Court.
6. Having consulted the parties, the President of the Chamber decided
that in the interests of the proper administration of justice, the proceedings
in the present case should be conducted simultaneously with those in the
cases of Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, McKerr v. the