LEADING ARTICLE: Human rights on the rocks

Yesterday's resumption of the row over the killing of three IRA members in Gibraltar in 1988 has obscured what is essentially a calm, reasoned judgment by the European Court of Human Rights. The Government should accept the legitimacy of the criticisms even if it disagrees with them.

In its ruling, the court does not accuse the government of the day of committing murder. It does not claim that Britain encouraged the "execution" of the trio. Nor does it condemn the four soldiers who carried out the operation: they acted, says the court, in good faith.

The court does, however, admonish Britain for failing to protect a right to life enjoyed even by three active terrorists. The verdict is that the authorities planned the operation badly. They could have arrested the suspects earlier. They should have allowed for the possibility that the three were unarmed. The court says that the soldiers should have been instructed to fire with greater caution.

These criticisms are reasonable, even though Mairead Farrell, Daniel McCann and Sean Savage were, it seems, planning an outrageous act of violence.

That there are also good arguments on the other side in this case is indicated by the fact that the court came to its decision by a narrow margin of 10 to nine. But the decision is not "incomprehensible", as Michael Heseltine claimed yesterday.

The Government's anger is fuelled in part by the fact that it comes from the "foreign" European Court of Human Rights, which polices the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention predates the European Community, an institution with which it has no direct connection.

The United Kingdom ratified the convention in 1951. Since then there have been more findings by the court against this country than any other state. Mr Heseltine's response is to declare that Britain's membership of this convention is now under review.

This is a shockingly misjudged reaction, designed presumably to throw some meat to the anti-European wolves shortly to assemble in the Blackpool Winter Gardens. The European Convention on Human Rights was partly drafted by British lawyers and it owes much to our own liberal legal and philosophical tradition, shaped by men such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. It is a product of the idealistic determination in the post-war years to ensure that the seeds of authoritarian government could never again be sown.

The real problem is that Britain is alone, with the Republic of Ireland, in failing to incorporate the convention into domestic law. So our judges cannot interpret it, even though we as citizens are bound by it. As a result, Britain's dirty linen is washed expensively and frequently in Strasbourg.

The solution, as advocated by a range of political parties, including the Ulster Unionists, and some of our most senior judges, is to incorporate this embryonic Bill of Rights into British law.