Chris McGimpsey's challenge to the GAA's retention of Rule 21 may require the assistance of a member of the security forces who wishes to play football or hurling. The UUP councillor intends to call the Irish Government to account under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on the grounds that it provides funds to the GAA.

It may be necessary to find someone who is both an Irish citizen and affected by Rule 21 which prohibits members of the Northern security forces from joining the association. This could be either a policeman who wants to join or - more improbably - a GAA member who wishes to enlist.

The ECHR, in effect, allows one state to sue another, an action the Irish Government successfully took against Britain in respect of torture of prisoners in the North. Additionally, it allows states to permit individual citizens to take actions against their own government, as David Norris successfully did in relation to the laws on homosexuality.

McGimpsey might not have locus standi, as he is not directly affected by the rule. In his legal action concerning what were then Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, some years ago, the question of his citizenship wasn't specifically addressed, although under Bunreacht na hEireann he is entitled to claim Irish citizenship.

Brian Garrett, of the Belfast solicitors Elliot Duffy Garrett, is dealing with the challenge which McGimpsey says is only at the preliminary stage.

"Elliot Duffy Garrett have experience of European cases and are considering the background at the moment," according to McGimspey.

"Our view is that crown forces are denied a basic right, and action can be taken against a government if that government is deemed to be complicit in the discrimination. Because it funds the GAA, the government of the Republic of Ireland, in our view, can be taken to court."

Would he be taking the case personally and so exercising his right to Irish citizenship, and to what extent could he be said to have suffered from Rule 21?

"I will take legal advice on the matter of citizenship, and we are also looking at the issue of whether we need a citizen of the Republic to take the action.

"The rationale behind the case is not just that it stops them playing GAA games, but that it helps bolster a cultural apartheid within Northern Ireland. It will be up to the barristers to decide how the action is framed."

GAA spokesperson Danny Lynch said that the association had no comment to make on the matter.

McGimpsey's action is further evidence that the decision not to delete Rule 21 at last Saturday week's special congress may not fade into the background. UDP leader Gary McMichael announced in Ireland on Sunday at the weekend that he intended to lobby sponsors of the GAA to place sanctions on the association.

Also at the weekend, Archbishop Clifford of Cashel and Emly, patron of the GAA, severely criticised the association for not deleting Rule 21. He further disclosed that a letter he had written to the association was not read out at the special congress.

Apparently, the GAA's Management Committee decided it would not be in the patron's interest to be seen to take sides in a divisive debate.

In the report of the special congress yesterday week, it was stated that Laois and Longford had advanced the idea of withdrawing the motion. In fact both counties were from the start, and remained, firm advocates of deletion.