Given the document below, determine if the summary is factually consistent with the document. A summary is factually consistent if all entity names in the summary are presented the same way as in the document.

Document: The 14 men were held without trial during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. They claim to have been subjected to "deep interrogation" in 1971. A barrister representing the men said their alleged treatment fell within the definition applied to international atrocities dealt with at The Hague. He also insisted any ministerial involvement in the case should become the subject of criminal proceedings. He said: "If one doesn't prosecute people at the highest level, it gives rise to a greater sense of impunity." In 1978, the European Court of Human Rights held that the UK had carried out inhuman and degrading treatment on the men. However, the court fell short of defining this treatment as "torture". Surviving members of the group are taking legal action in a bid to secure an independent and human rights-compliant investigation into what they claim they were subjected to. Action is being taken against the chief

Summary: 1. However, the court fell short of defining this treatment as "torture".

Is the summary factually consistent with the document with respect to entity names?
Options: "Yes" or "No"

Answer:


 Write your response with exactly 5 paragraphs, separated with the markdown divider: ***.
user