ECtHR – G.S. v. Bulgaria (no. 36538/17), 4 April 2019

The applicant, an Iranian national, was detained upon arrival to Sofia Airport in December 2016 in response to a Red Interpol Alert issued by the National Central Bureau of Interpol for Iran. According to the Red Alert, the applicant had stolen the equivalent of 50,000 euro from a foreign-exchange office in Tehran and fled the country.

In January 2017, an extradition request was submitted by the Iranian authorities to Bulgaria and stated that the act committed by the applicant was an offence under Article 656 § 4 of the Iranian Penal Code. In the request, the Iranian authorities stated that the applicant would face imprisonment under the abovementioned article and assured the Bulgarian authorities that the applicant would not face torture or inhuman treatment if returned to Iran.

In April 2017, the Sofia City Court found that the extradition request met all the formal requirements and that it was permissible to proceed on the basis of the de facto reciprocity between Bulgaria and Iran on extradition matters. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Sofia Court of Appeal.

The applicant complains that his extradition to Iran would put him in danger of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.  

With regard to its own case law on extradition and the recent case of M.G. v. Bulgaria (59297/12, paras. 74-82), it noted that in the extradition request in the instant case, the National Central Bureau of Interpol for Iran did not fully disclose the relevant penal code provisions and the maximum penalty the applicant could face, as is required under Interpol’s Rules on the Processing of Data. The domestic courts only became aware of the potential punishment at the end of court proceedings.The Court held that the domestic court had assumed that the applicant would only be subject to imprisonment and failed to sufficiently examine publicly available information on punishment under Article 656 of the Iranian Penal Code. It thus found that the potential violation of Article 3 was not adequately assessed in domestic proceedings.

The Court further found that the assurances provided by the Iranian authorities that the applicant would not be subject to torture or inhuman treatment could not be regarded as sufficient for two main reasons. First, it was found that the omission of the relevant article of the Iranian Penal Code from the extradition request raised doubts as to the trustworthiness of the Iranian authorities. Second, the Court found that the Iranian authorities do not regard flogging or other forms of corporal punishment as inhuman or degrading treatment.

The Court therefore ruled that the extradition of the applicant to Iran would constitute a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 due to the possible punishment that awaits him there.
 

Violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the applicant were to be extradited to Iran.