Ahmad v United Kingdom [European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section).]

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Judge: Bratza,Bianku,Hirvelä,Nicolaou,Björgvinsson,Vučinić,Garlicki
• Court: Court of Justice of the European Union
• Docket Number: (Application Nos 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09)
• Date: 10 April 2012

European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section).

(Garlicki, President; Björgvinsson, Bratza, Hirvelä, Nicolaou, Bianku and Vučinić, Judges)

(Application Nos 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09)

Ahmad and Others

and

United Kingdom1

Human rights — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — United States of America seeking extradition of applicants from United Kingdom — Applicants indicted in United States on terrorism charges — Applicants lodging application against United Kingdom with European Court of Human Rights — Admissibility of applicants' complaints — Whether applicants at real risk of ill-treatment if extradited and convicted in United States — Whether United Kingdom would be in violation of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 if applicants extradited to United States — Prison conditions at super-maximum security detention facility in United States — Whether meeting Article 3 requirements — Solitary confinement — Outdoor exercise — Mental health of detainee — Special administrative measures — Length of possible sentences — Whether sentences grossly disproportionate — Whether sentences amounting to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3

Treaties — Interpretation — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 3 — Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment — Relevant international law on non-refoulement— Approach of Human Rights Committee — Article 7 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 — Article 19 of Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Council of Europe Guidelines — Articles 3 and 16(2) of United Nations Convention against Torture, 1984

Extradition — 1972 United Kingdom–United States Extradition Treaty superseded by 2003 Treaty — United States of America seeking extradition of applicants from United Kingdom — Applicants contesting proposed extradition in English courts — Applicants lodging application against United Kingdom with European Court of Human Rights — Whether applicants at real risk of ill-treatment if extradited and convicted in United States — Whether United Kingdom would be in violation of Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 if applicants extradited to United States

Summary:3The facts: — The applicants4 were the subject of extradition requests made to the United Kingdom by the United States of America, where they had been indicted on various terrorism charges. The requests were made pursuant to the United Kingdom–United States of America Extradition Treaty, 1972,5 Article IV of which provided that extradition could be refused unless satisfactory assurances were given that the death penalty would not be carried out.6

The applicants lodged their applications against the United Kingdom with the Court between 2007 and 2009. They alleged that if they were extradited and convicted in the United States, they would be at real risk of ill-treatment in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 (‘the Convention’)7 either as a result of detention conditions at the super-maximum security detention facility, ADX Florence,8 with or without special administrative measures (‘SAMs’), or as a result of the length of their possible sentences. The Respondent Government contested each of these arguments.

On 6 July 2010, the Court declared the first, second and third applicants' complaints concerning detention at ADX Florence and the imposition of SAMs post-trial admissible. The fourth applicant's complaint in respect of ADX Florence was declared inadmissible since there was no risk of an extended stay due to his medical condition. The four applicants' complaints concerning

the length of their possible sentences were declared admissible. Notice of the fifth and sixth applicants' cases was given to the Respondent Government. The Court continued to indicate to the Respondent Government that the applicants should not be extradited until further notice under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

Held (unanimously): — There would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention either as a result of conditions at ADX Florence and the imposition of SAMs, or as a result of the length of their possible sentences if the first, third, fifth and sixth applicants were extradited to the United States.

(1) The applications brought by the first, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were joined given their similar factual and legal background. The application of the second applicant was treated separately due to the nature of the facts and the substantive issues raised; its examination was adjourned since it required further submissions from the parties (paras. 157 and 255–6).

(2) The fifth and sixth applicants' complaints concerning detention at ADX Florence, the imposition of SAMs post-trial and the possible length of their sentences were admissible. They were not inadmissible on any other grounds and were not manifestly ill-founded (paras. 180–1 and 225).

(3) The ChahalINTL ruling9 (as reaffirmed in SaadiINTL)10 applied equally to extradition and other types of removal from the territory of a Contracting State and without distinction between the various forms of ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3.

(a) The legal basis for removal did not affect the risk of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 since extradition and other removals might be similar in practice. Ill-treatment was usually not characterized as torture or inhuman or degrading punishment in the extra-territorial context since it was difficult to assess prospectively its severity. Assessment of the minimum level of severity required for an Article 3 violation was the same in both domestic and extraterritorial contexts; it was independent of the reasons for removal or extradition (paras. 166–73).

(b) The United Nations Human Rights Committee's approach to the prohibition on torture and ill-treatment in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 196611 assisted in interpreting Article 3. The Committee's General Comment No 20 made clear that Article 7 prevented refoulement where there was a real risk either of torture or of other forms of ill-treatment.12 This approach was confirmed by Article 19 of the Charter on

Fundamental Rights of the European Union,13 which applied irrespective of extradition context and of whether the risk was of torture or other forms of ill-treatment. It was also consistent with Council of Europe Guidelines14 and accorded with Articles 3 and 16(2) of the United Nations Convention against Torture, 198415 (paras. 174–6).

(c) The absolute nature of Article 3 did not mean that any form of ill-treatment would act as a bar to removal from a Contracting State. The Convention did not purport to be a means of requiring the Contracting States to impose Convention standards on other States. Treatment violating Article 3 because of an act or omission of a Contracting State might not attain the minimum level of severity required for an Article 3 violation in an expulsion or extradition case (paras. 177–8).

(d) A finding that removal from the territory of a Contracting State would be contrary to Article 3 was rare. Except for death penalty cases, such a finding was even rarer if the applicant was to be removed to a State with a long history of respect of democracy, human rights and the rule of law (para. 179).

(4) There would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention as a result of conditions at ADX Florence and the imposition of SAMs post-trial if the first, third, fifth and sixth applicants were extradited to the United States.

(a) Article 3 enshrined one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibited in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour. A minimum level of severity of ill-treatment was required; its assessment was relative depending on the circumstances. Absence of a purpose to humiliate the victim did not rule out a violation finding. With respect to detention conditions, suffering had to exceed that inherent in a form of legitimate punishment. Conditions had to be compatible with respect for human dignity, not involve excessive distress and adequately secure health and well-being. Account was to be taken of their cumulative effect (paras. 200–4).

(b) Solitary confinement violated Article 3 when sensory isolation was complete and social isolation total. Partial sensory isolation could also violate Article 3. While prolonged social isolation was undesirable, the particular conditions, stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects determined whether Article 3 was violated. Solitary confinement should not be imposed indefinitely, particularly when prisoners were not dangerous or disorderly. There had to be procedural safeguards guaranteeing the prisoner's welfare and the measure's proportionality (paras. 205–12).

(c) The availability and duration of outdoor exercise for prisoners together with its conditions were relevant. The prisoner's health, including mental health, was also relevant. His medical condition, adequacy of medical care and advisability of maintaining the detention measure were to be considered (paras. 213–15).

(d) Although it was not inevitable, there was a real risk that the applicants would be held at ADX Florence. The physical conditions at ADX Florence met Article 3 requirements. There was no evidence of a lack of procedural safeguards before placement at ADX. Not all those convicted of international terrorism offences were housed at ADX. Although the applicants were not physically dangerous, they posed a significant security risk justifying strict communications limitations; this risk was subject to review. Inmates did not experience complete sensory and social isolation; a range of activities and...