Soering v United Kingdom (1989)

Facts: Soering was a German national who was charged with capital crime of murder. At the
time of the alleged offense, he was a student of University of Virginia. He (and his girlfriend) was
charged with murder for the death of his girlfriend’s parents. He was later serving a sentence in
the U.K. for a check fraud. An order for his extradition to Virginia in the United States was issued
so that the he can face trial in Virginia, USA (for his murder charge). Soering argued that if he
were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, that he would experience 'death row-
phenomenon' which would lead to the violation of his Convention rights.

Issue: W/N Soering’s extradition from the UK to the USA and the risk of serving on death row
would constitute a violation of article 3 of the European Convention.

Ruling: YES. The ECHR found a violation of article 3, thereby recognizing the extra-
territorial effect of the ECHR

Article 3 provides: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment". The breach of Article 3 is linked to the treatment the applicant
argued he would receive if he were to be detained on death row in Virginia for an expected six
to eight years. The ECtHR accordingly found the UK to be in breach of Article 3.

The Court held that Article 3 could not be interpreted as prohibiting, in itself, capital punishment.
However, the conditions of execution of the punishment (exposure to "death row" syndrome)
would expose the applicant to a real risk of treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article
3.

The ECtHR in defining torture, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 ECHR, argued
that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3. This
depends upon the circumstances of the case and context of the treatment or punishment, the
manner and method of its execution, its duration and physical or mental effects. The Soering
doctrine is narrowly construed. Central to the ECtHRs reasoning was the 'serious and
irreparable nature of the alleged suffering'. Soering is part of the courts extensive
jurisprudence in support of the rights of prisoners. Furthermore, it first established the principle
that a Member State can be in breach of a Convention right merely by expelling an individual to
a state in which he or she would face a breach of a Convention right. The UK itself did not need
to carry out any acts of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment to be in breach of Article 3, they
merely need to place Soering at the 'real risk' of being subject to treatment in breach of
Article 3. The Soering decision effectively established a hard protection against extradition in
Article 3 cases. This principle was later extended to violations of Article 6 (fair trial), Article 13
(lack of effective remedy) and Protocol 4 (collective expulsions).