Case summaries

Thirteen applicants from Georgia and Russia (of Chechen origin) alleged that their extradition to Russia, where capital punishment was not abolished, exposed them to the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The applicants also alleged that they had been subject to violence and ill-treatment by fifteen members of the Georgian Ministry of Justice’s special forces in Tbilisi Prison no.5., on the night of 3 and 4 October 2002. Their legal representatives asserted that Mr Aziev, one of the extradited applicants, had died as a result of ill-treatment inflicted on him. The applicants also complained of violations of Article 2 and 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, Article 13 in conjunction with articles 2 and 3, Article 34, Articles 2, 3 and 6 §§ 1,2 and 3 and Article 38 § 1 of the Convention. 

This decision upheld the decision of the District Court in J. as regards the legal inadmissibility of extraditing a foreigner. The decision to accord refugee status was taken by a competent French authority and is binding within the territory of Poland, where the foreigner, who is sought by the Russian authorities, was detained. Poland recognises the decisions of other states to accord refugee status to foreigners and grants such foreigners the same degree and scope of legal protection as it would in the case of a foreigner granted protection by a competent Polish authority.

After the revocation of his residence permit due to his religious activities (alleged links with a fundamentalist organisation), the applicant was detained for a period of 26 days and later deported from Bulgaria. The applicant claims to have been refused access to a lawyer and to have been detained incommunicado. He also claims that his detention and deportation was an interference with his right to family life and right to religious freedom. 

This case involved the UK’s attempted deportation of an Indian citizen and leader of the Sikh separatist movement who lived in the UK and was allegedly a national security threat. Because of the risk of ill-treatment, the Court found the UK would breach Art. 3 if he were deported to India, in conjunction with a violation of Art. 13. Because he was not able to review the lawfulness of his prolonged detention, the Court also found a violation of Art. 5 (4). 

The five applicants were asylum seekers from Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity whose requests were denied in the UK and had been returned to Sri Lanka. The Court rejected their allegations that a breach of Art. 3 due to risk of ill-treatment as well as of a breach of Art. 13 because of ineffective judicial remedy had been committed by the UK.