Terrorism represents a creeping threat to western European societies. It aims at the very heart of democratic institutions. In most cases its immediate impact on the average individual is not considered sufficient, in Western Europe, to justify the adoption of exceptionally restrictive measures. Restrictive measures, generally called for in cases of war or full-fledged internal conflict, would be considered as imposing too heavy a limitation on individual rights and freedoms with the risk of

more »

... ying the terrorists' game. 1 Under the European Convention of Human Rights (the Convention) states have the choice between suspending of certain rights and freedoms outright, pursuant to Article 15,2 and placing a more elastic interpretation on some of its provisions in an attempt to keep within the Convention's boundaries. However, the reluctance of states to resort to Article IS has sometimes led to interpretations whose compatibility with the Convention is doubtful. 3 European Court of Human Rights, case of Brogan and others (10/Revue de Science Criminelle el Droit Penal Compart (1987) 499. The first paragraph of Article IS reads as follows: "In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may lake measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law." Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, European Treaty Series No. 19S. On Article IS, and equivalent clauses included in other Human Rights treaties, see R. Higgins, 'Derogations under Human Rights Treaties', BYIL (1976-77) 281-320. * See, e.g., the Commission's position in McVeigh, O'Neill and Evans v. VJC., Nos. 8022/77, 8025/77, 8027/77, 25 Decisions and Reports (DR) 15, and the doubts raised by Trechsel in his dissenting opinion, 98. With respect to the Italian anti-terrorist legislation in force in the 1970s and the compatibility with the European Convention of the extended terms of pre-trial detention, see Benvenuti, 'La "ragionevolezza" della detenzione preventiva nell'art. 5.3 della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell'Uomo', 57 UivX)«>in/.(1974) at 508; Cassese, "The In-7 EJIL (1990) 269 Antonio Tanca One of the main "targets" of state legislation in this field is Article 5, protecting personal freedom. The case I shall briefly consider focuses on the interpretation of this Article, which, as is well known, guarantees personal freedom in general terms and contains an exhaustive list of exceptions. It compels state authorities, when limiting personal freedom, to keep strictly within the boundaries of the listed exceptions. 4 In 1974, the British parliament enacted the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) ActS with the aim of countering ten01 ism more effectively. In September and October 1984, four individuals -suspected of being members of the Provisional IRAwere arrested under Section 12 of this Act and were taken to detention centres. There they were interrogated and then released without being charged, after 5 days and 11 hours, 6 days and 163 hours, 4 days and 6 hours, and 4 days and 11 hours respectively. 6 Under Section 12, the police were entitled to arrest any person suspected of terrorist-related offences, detain him or her for a maximum of 48 hours, and, if desired, ask the competent Secretary of State for an extension of the 48-hour time limit; the Secretary empowered to grant a maximum of five additional days granted an extension in this case.' The prolonged detention was therefore legal under British legislation.