Judges in Strasbourg today threw out their claim saying that the "exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety" at the time of the failed attack, which came only a fortnight after the killing of 52 people in the July 7 London bombings, had justified the police decision to delay the men's access to lawyers.
Somali nationals Muktar Said Ibrahim, Ramzi Mohammed and Yassin Omar - who each tried unsuccessfully to detonate bombs - claimed their convictions were unfair because statements they gave when denied access to lawyers were used in their trial.
In a statement the judges said "The Court noted that two weeks earlier, suicide bombers had detonated their bombs on the London transport system, killing 52 people and injuring countless more. It was satisfied that, at the time of the four applicants' initial police interviews, there had been an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety, namely the risk of further attacks, and that this threat provided compelling reasons justifying the temporary delay in allowing the applicants' access to lawyers".
"It also found that no undue prejudice had been caused to the applicants' right to a fair trial by the admission at their trials of the statements they had made during police interviews and before they had been given access to legal assistance".
Three of the men were convicted in 2007 over a botched attempt to repeat the attacks in London of July 7, 2005.
Ramzi Mohammed, Muktar Said Ibrahim and Yassin Omar were found guilty of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to minimum terms of 40 years' imprisonment.
A fourth defendant, Ismail Abdulrahman was convicted in 2008 of assisting one of the failed bombers and failing to disclose information about the planned attacks. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, which was reduced to eight years on appeal.
The Court said "On July 21, 2005 four bombs were detonated on the London transport system but failed to explode. The perpetrators fled the scene and a police investigation immediately commenced. The Court was satisfied that, at the time of the four applicants' initial police interviews, there had been an exceptionally serious and imminent threat to public safety, namely the risk of further attacks, and that this threat provided compelling reasons justifying the temporary delay in allowing the applicants' access to lawyers".
"It also found that no undue prejudice had been caused to the applicants' right to a fair trial by the admission at their trials of the statements they had made during police interviews and before they had been given access to legal assistance," it added.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/followceleb.cms?alias=Plot to blow,Mercy plea,London transport network,Human Rights Court,Human rights
Stay updated on the go with The Times of India's mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Human rights court turns down mercy plea on the failed plot to blow london transport
Dengan url
http://susucanglai.blogspot.com/2014/12/human-rights-court-turns-down-mercy.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Human rights court turns down mercy plea on the failed plot to blow london transport
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Human rights court turns down mercy plea on the failed plot to blow london transport
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar