Ratione temporis<\/strong><\/p>\nLack of \u201cgenuine connection\u201d between killings in 1948 and the date the right of individual petition had been recognised: inadmissible<\/p>\n
Facts \u2013 In December 1948 a group of twenty-four unarmed civilians were shot and killed by British soldiers in Batang Kali in Selangor, Malaya. At the time of their deaths, Malaya, which is now Malaysia, was part of the British Empire. The country became independent in 1957. Certain investigative acts took place in the United Kingdom (in the 1940s and 1970s) and in Malaysia (1990s). The Convention was adopted on 4 November 1950 and came into force in the United Kingdom on 3 September 1953. It was extended to the Federation of Malaya on 23 October 1953. On 14 January 1966 the United Kingdom granted the right of individual petition.<\/p>\n
The applicants, all close relatives of one or more of the victims, three of whom had been present in Batang Kali at the relevant time, complained that there had been a breach of the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to conduct an independent investigation.<\/p>\n
Law \u2013 Article 2 (temporal jurisdiction) \u2013 It was not in dispute that no Article 2 compliant investigation into the events at Batang Kali had ever taken place. Nevertheless, as the events at Batang Kali had occurred in 1948, some two years before the adoption of the Convention, the applicants\u2019 complaint would only fall within the Court\u2019s jurisdiction ratione temporis if either the \u201cgenuine connection\u201d test or the \u201cConvention values\u201d test was satisfied.<\/p>\n
(a) \u201cGenuine connection\u201d test \u2013 In Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], the Court had held that, for a \u201cgenuine connection\u201d to be established, the period between the death and the entry into force of the Convention in respect of the State concerned had to have been reasonably short (no more than ten years) and a major part of the investigation had or ought to have been carried out after the date of entry into force of the Convention.<\/p>\n
In the instant case, in order to assess whether there existed a \u201cgenuine connection\u201d between the deaths in 1948 (being the \u201ctriggering event\u201d) and the \u201ccritical date\u201d, the Court had to first determine when the \u201ccritical date\u201d fell, in particular, whether it fell in October 1953, when the Convention was extended to the territory of Malaya, or in January 1966, when the United Kingdom recognised the right of individual citizens to petition the Court.<\/p>\n
Relying on \u0160ilih v. Slovenia [GC], Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], Janowiec and Others v. Russia; Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], Cakir v. Cyprus (dec.) and Jeli\u0107 v. Croatia, Article 6 jurisprudence on continuing violations, as well as on the relevant jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee, the Court considered that its case-law pointed overwhelmingly towards the \u201ccritical date\u201d being the date that the right of individual petition had been recognised.<\/p>\n
In the applicants\u2019 case the \u201ccritical date\u201d was 14 January 1966, the date that the United Kingdom had granted the right of individual petition. As the lapse of time between the \u201ctriggering event\u201d and the \u201ccritical date\u201d had been eighteen years, following Janowiec and Others there could be no \u201cgenuine connection\u201d between the two.<\/p>\n
(b) \u201cConvention values\u201d test \u2013 In accordance with the principles established in Janowiec and Others, the \u201cConvention values\u201d test would be satisfied in cases where the triggering event was of a larger dimension than an ordinary criminal offence and amounted to the negation of the very foundations of the Convention.<\/p>\n
If the applicants\u2019 allegations were true, the killing of twenty-four unarmed civilians at Batang Kali might well have amounted to a crime under international law of sufficient severity to engage the \u201cConvention values\u201d test. However, the \u201cConvention values\u201d test could not be applied to events which had occurred prior to the adoption of the Convention on 4 November 1950, for it was only then that the Convention began its existence as an international human rights treaty.<\/p>\n
In any case, the applicants should have been aware of the lack of any effective criminal investigation as early as the 1970s, after significant new evidence had come to light, and it could not, therefore, be said that the present application had been lodged \u201cwith due expedition\u201d.<\/p>\n
Conclusions: inadmissible (incompatible ratione temporis).<\/p>\n
(See Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], 16064\/90, 18 September 2009, Information Note 122; \u0160ilih v. Slovenia [GC], 71463\/01, 9 April 2014, Information Note 118; Janowiec and Others v. Russia [GC], 55508\/07 and 29520\/09, 21 October 2013, Information Note 167; Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], 10865\/09, 17 September 2014, Information Note 177); Jeli\u0107 v. Croatia,57856\/11, 12 June 2014, Information Note 175; and \u00c7akir v. Cyprus (dec.), 7864\/06, 29 April 2010)<\/p>\n