Lawyers for the "Hooded Men" have begun High Court proceedings to seek an order to compel the Attorney General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs to apply to the European Court of Human Rights for a revision of its 1978 torture judgment.

The lawyers are seeking to apply for a judicial review compelling the Attorney General to act expeditiously and, if necessary, to seek an extension of time from the European Court.

They said new evidence was revealed on 4 June last by an RTÉ Investigations Unit documentary.

They said that under European Court of Human Rights rules, a six-month window of opportunity opened up for the State to apply for a revised judgment in the inter-state case, Ireland v United Kingdom.

It expires next Thursday, 4 December.

Today the High Court granted the men a telescoped hearing at 3pm on Monday.

They can then apply for leave to apply to force the Government to go to Europe and have that application heard.

The Department of Foreign Affairs is still considering thousands of documents it sought and received from RTÉ of new British national archive material the documentary based its revelations on.

The department is also considering material sent to it separately by the Pat Finucane Centre.

The Hooded Men were 14 men arrested during the internment operation of 1971 and subjected to enhanced interrogation, then known as in-depth interrogation.

Five techniques of sensory deprivation were used on the men: Hooding, wall standing, "white noise", sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and water.

Their case became a central element in the first inter-state case heard under the European Convention of Human Rights, Ireland v United Kingdom, lodged in 1971 and finished in 1978.

The judgment from the European Court of Human Rights said that although the men had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, it did not constitute torture.

Two of the hooded men said the action must be taken to prevent others being tortured in the future.

Francis McGuigan and Kevin Hannaway said the Government has a moral obligation to seek to overturn the 1978 ruling.

The men, who said they still suffer ill-effects from their treatment 43 years later, said they want the truth to be acknowledged.

They were speaking outside the High Court this afternoon.