UNIVERSITY OF OSLO, FACULTY OF LAW, NORWEGIAN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

JUR 5130/11 October 2006, Case Brief(Group B)

Case Parties Facts Jens Soering v The United Kingdom, ECHR, No.14038/88 Applicant: Jens Soering, a German national State Parties: UK Mr. Soering is currently detained in prison in England pending extradition to the USA to face charges of murder in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Government of USA requested the applicants extradition on 11 August 1986. But on 11 March 1987 the Government of the F R of Germany requested his extradition too. Mr. Soering stated his extradition to the United States would constitute a violation of Art. 6-3-c of the Convention. In the circumstances and, in particular, having regard to the "death row phenomenon" he would thereby be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. The United Kingdom Government contended that Article 3 should not be interpreted so as to impose responsibility on a Contracting State for acts which occur outside its jurisdiction. In the alternative, the United Kingdom Government submitted that the application of Article 3 in extradition cases should be limited to those occasions in which the treatment or punishment abroad is certain, imminent and serious. On 3 August 1988 the Secretary of State signed a warrant ordering Mr. Soerings surrender to the United States authorities. Mr. Soerings application (no. 14038/88) was lodged with the Commission on 8 July 1988. The Commission declared the application admissible on 10 November 1988. The case was brought before the Court on 25 January 1989 by the European Commission of Human Rights. 1. Is there serious likelihood that the applicant would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment contrary to Art. 3 of the Convention? 2. Would it constitute a violation of Art 6-3-c that the extradition of the applicant to USA? 3. Does it breaks Art 13 that the applicant claimed he had no effective remedy under UK law? 4. Should UK be responsible for acts outside its territory? 5. Does the death penalty row constitute of a torture? Directly: the right against torture Indirectly: right to life The Court found that there were substantial grounds to expect that a death sentence and subsequent death row might be the result of proceedings in the USA, and that under the particular circumstances this would represent a real risk of exposing Mr. Soering to treatment-intense mental suffering over a long period-going beyond the threshold set by Article 3.

Procedura l Posture

Issues

Rights Holding & Reasoning

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO, FACULTY OF LAW, NORWEGIAN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Extradition in such circumstances, while not explicitly referred to in the brief and general wording of Article 3 (art. 3), would plainly be contrary to the spirit and intendment of the Article, and in the Courts view this inherent obligation not to extradite also extends to cases in which the fugitive would be faced in the receiving State by a real risk of exposure to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment proscribed by that Article (art. 3). Rules of Extraterritorial responsibility under 3 establishes a legal barrier on Law deportation or extradition of persons if there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3. Decision The Court ruled that implementation of the Secretary of States decision to extradite Mr. Soering would represent a breach of Article 3.(Not breach of Article 6 and 13. ) The UK had to the legal costs of Mr. Soering. Validity Legal binding.