ECtHR - Hilal v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 45276/99, 6 June 2001
| Country of applicant: | Tanzania |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights Third Chamber |
| Date of decision: | 06-06-2001 |
| Citation: | Hilal v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 45276/99, 6 June 2001 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Country of origin information
Description
"Information used by the Member States authorities to analyse the socio-political situation in countries of origin of applicants for international protection (and, where necessary, in countries through which they have transited) in the assessment, carried out on an individual basis, of an application for international protection.” It includes all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, obtained from various sources, including the laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied, regulations of the country of origin, plus general public sources, such as reports from (inter)national organisations, governmental and non-governmental organisations, media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin, embassy reports, etc. This information is also used inter alia for taking decisions on other migration issues, e.g. on return, as well as by researchers. One of the stated aims of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is to progressively bring all activities related to practical cooperation on asylum under its roof, to include the collection of Country of Origin Information and a common approach to its use. |
|
Effective remedy (right to)
Description
A general principle of EU law now set out in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article.” “[It] is based on Article 13 of the ECHR: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.’ However, in Community law the protection is more extensive since it guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a court. The Court of Justice enshrined the principle in its judgment of 15 May 1986 (Case 222/84 Johnston [1986] ECR 1651; see also judgment of 15 October 1987, Case 222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097 and judgment of 3 December 1992, Case C-97/91 Borelli [1992] ECR I-6313. According to the Court, this principle also applies to the Member States when they are implementing Community law. The inclusion of this precedent in the Charter is not intended to change the appeal system laid down by the Treaties, and particularly the rules relating to admissibility. This principle is therefore to be implemented according to the procedures laid down in the Treaties. It applies to the institutions of the Union and of Member States when they are implementing Union law and does so for all rights guaranteed by Union law.” |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports
Description
“Expert medical report used as evidence relevant to the application for international protection. Where psychological elements are relevant, the medical report should provide information on the nature and degree of mental illness and should assess the applicant's ability to fulfil the requirements normally expected of an applicant in presenting his case. The conclusions of the medical report will determine the examiner's further approach.” |
|
Personal interview
Description
"The process of questioning or talking with a person in order to obtain information or determine the personal qualities of the person. An interview is a common step in the adjudication of an application for refugee or other immigration status.” An applicant for asylum must be given the opportunity of a personal interview subject to the provisions of the Asylum Procedures Directive: - A personal interview must normally take place without the presence of family members unless considered necessary for an appropriate examination. - It must be conducted under conditions which allow applicants to present the grounds for their applications in a comprehensive manner and which ensure appropriate confidentiality. - the person who conducts the interview must be sufficiently competent to take account of the personal or general circumstances surrounding the application, including the applicant’s cultural origin or vulnerability, insofar as it is possible to do so - interpreters must be able to ensure appropriate communication between the applicant and the person who conducts the interview but it need not necessarily take place in the language preferred by the applicant if there is another language which he/she may reasonably be supposed to understand and in which he/she is able to communicate. - Member States may provide for rules concerning the presence of third parties at a personal interview. - a written report must be made of every personal interview, containing at least the essential information regarding the application as presented by the applicant - applicants must have timely access to the report of the personal interview and in any case as soon as necessary for allowing an appeal to be prepared and lodged in due time." |
|
Refugee Status
Description
The recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or stateless person as a refugee. |
|
Political Opinion
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive the concept of political opinion includes holding an opinion, thought or belief on a matter related to potential actors of persecution and to their policies or methods, whether or not that opinion, thought or belief has been acted upon by the applicant. |
|
Real risk
Description
In order to be eligible for subsidiary protection, a third country national or stateless person must demonstrate that if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, s/he would face a real risk of serious harm as defined in QD Art. 15 and that s/he is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail her/himself of the protection of that country. The fact that an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, is a serious indication of the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated. |
Headnote:
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the proposed expulsion of a Tanzanian national from the United Kingdom to Tanzania will expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Facts:
The applicant, a Tanzanian national, was arrested and detained because of his involvement with the opposition to the ruling party. In detention, he was tortured for months. After his release and the detention of his wife, he left Tanzania for fear of his safety. Subsequently he arrived in the United Kingdom and applied for asylum. His application was rejected both by the Secretary of State on account of his inconsistent statements and on appeal by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. The applicant complained that he would be placed at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 if he were expelled from the United Kingdom to Tanzania. He further complained that his expulsion to Tanzania would violate his rights under Article 6 and 8 of the Convention. In addition, he alleged that he did not have an effective remedy against the proposed expulsion (Article 13).
Decision & reasoning:
The Court, after examining the materials provided by the applicant, found no basis to reject them as forged. It further accepted that the applicant was arrested and detained due to his participation within the opposition of the ruling party and his financial support to that party. It also acknowledged that the applicant had been ill-treated during his detention, taking into account the medical records of the hospital that treated him [64-65]. Turning to the medical reports and his brother’s death certificate, it highlighted that they were consistent with the applicant’s allegations that his brother had been ill-treated in prison. The Court also recalled the applicant’s wife statements in her interview that the police came to her house looking for the applicant and had threatened her on several occasions, statements which were consistent with the information provided by different reports on the region [66].
What is more, the Court was not persuaded that the "internal flight" option offered a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. Therefore, it found that the applicant’s deportation to Tanzania would breach Article 3 as he would face a serious risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment there [68].
Turning to the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 and 8, the Court considered that in light of its above conclusions, no separate issue had arisen [70-71].
Concerning the applicant’s complaint under Article 13, the Court noted that the substance of the applicant’s complaint was examined by the Court of Appeal and therefore concluded that the applicant had an effective remedy at his disposal [79]. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been no violation of Article 13.
Outcome:
Violation of Article 3 in case of expulsion to Tanzania.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| UK - Immigration Act 1971 |
| UK - Immigration Rules - Para 328 |
| UK - Immigration Rules - Rule 346 |
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Aydin v Turkey (Application no. 25660/94) |
| ECtHR - T.I. v United Kingdom (Application no. 43844/98) |
| ECtHR - D v. United Kingdom, Application No. 30240/96 (UP) |
| ECtHR - Chalal v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 1948/04 |
| ECtHR - Ahmed v Austria, Application No. 25964/94 (UP) |
| ECtHR - Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 9659/82 and 9658/82 |
| ECtHR - Ilhan v Turkey, Application No. 22277/93 |
| ECtHR - Aksoy v Turkey, Application No. 21987/93 |
| ECtHR - H.L.R. v. France, Application no. 24573/94 |
| ECtHR- Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, Application Nos. 3163/87 13164/87 13165/87 13447/87 13448/87 |
| ECtHR - Kaya v. Turkey, Application no. 22535/93 |
Follower Cases:
Other sources:
US Department of State, Tanzania Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996, January 1997
Amnesty International Annual Report 1997
Amnesty International Report 1998
1998 US State Department Report on Tanzania, 26 February 1999
Amnesty International 1999 Report for Tanzania, 1 January 1999
1999 US State Department Report on Tanzania