THE IRISH GOVERNMENT FILED AN APPLICATION WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS CONTENDING THAT GREAT BRITAIN'S CIVIL AUTHORITIES OR SPECIAL POWERS ACT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONVENTION AND THAT INTERNMENT WITHOUT TRIAL, AS CARRIED OUT BY GREAT BRITAIN IN NORTHERN IRELAND, VIOLATED THE CONVENTION. GREAT BRITAIN SUBSTITUTED THE DTO FOR THE CONTROVERSIAL SPECIAL POWERS ACT. THE DTO PROVIDES FOR THE DETENTION OF PERSONS INVOLVED IN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, WHILE THE PURPOSE OF THE CONVENTION IS TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM AND SECURITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST ARBITRARY DETENTION OR ARREST. IF AUTHORITIES ARE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON HAS BEEN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE COMMISSION OF TERRORIST ACTS, THAT PERSON MAY BE DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY AS LONG AS DETENTION SEEMS NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. SUCH DETENTION IS PERMITTED DESPITE THE FACT THAT A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IS NOT CONTEMPLATING THE FILING OF CRIMINAL CHARGES. THE CONVENTION STIPULATES THAT ANYONE ARRESTED MUST BE INFORMED OF THE REASON FOR ARREST AND ANY CHARGE. IN THE DETERMINATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS OR CRIMINAL CHARGES, THE CONVENTION ALSO PROVIDES THAT A PERSON MUST BE GIVEN A FAIR PUBLIC HEARING WITHIN A RESONABLE TIME BY AN INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL TRIBUNAL ESTABLISHED BY LAW. REASONABLE SUSPICION IS REQUIRED BY THE CONVENTION BEFORE A PERSON IS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY. UNQUALIFIED SUSPICION IS SUFFICIENT IN THE DTO, AND NO CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE REQUIRED FOR DETENTION. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE USE OF VIOLENCE CONFLICTS WITH PENAL LAW, THE DTO IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONVENTION, EVEN THOUGH DEFINITIONS OF OFFENSE IN THE CONVENTION AND OF TERRORISM IN THE DTO DIFFER. FURTHERMORE, THE DTO IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONVENTION BASED ON A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. THE BASIC CONSIDERATION OF GREAT BRITAIN IS TO PROCURE EVIDENCE AGAINST SUSPECTED TERRORISTS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE IF TERRORISTS UNDER THE DTO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECTIONS OF THE CONVENTION AND WHETHER DETENTION UNDER THE DTO IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIED. THE DTO REPRESENTS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE SPECIAL POWERS ACT BUT DEVIATES FROM THE NORMAL AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS OF LAW IN CRIMINAL MATTERS. A RATIONAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION IS PRESENTED TO SHOW THAT LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE DTO IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN RIGHTS. SPECIFIC ARTICLES OF THE CONVENTION AND RELEVANT CASE LAW DECIDED BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS ARE EXAMINED. (DEP)