The applicants said that if extradited to the USA to face charges related to terrorism, they would risk facing either imprisonment by Presidential decree, or full life terms.
Held: Detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged terrorists would not amount to ill-treatment if they were extradited to the USA. There would be no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) as a result of conditions of detention at ADX Florence (a ‘supermax’ prison in the United States).
The court distinguished between a mandatory whole life sentence, and a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. A whole life mandatory sentence was not, of itself, incompatible with the Convention, although the trend in Europe militated against the imposition of such sentences. Such a sentence ‘would be much more likely to be disproportionate than any other type of life sentence, especially if it required the sentencing court to disregard mitigating factors which are generally understood as indicating a significantly lower level of culpability on the part of the defendant such as youth or severe mental health problems’.
As to the discretionary whole life order (ii) the court observed: ‘normally such sentences are imposed for offences of the utmost severity, such as murder or manslaughter. In any legal system, such offences, if they do not attract a life sentence normally attract a substantial sentence of imprisonment, perhaps of several decades. Therefore, any defendant who is convicted of such an offence must expect to serve a significant number of years in prison before he can realistically have any hope of release, irrespective of whether he is given a life sentence or a determinate sentence. It follows, therefore, that, if a discretionary life sentence is imposed by a court after due consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors, an Article 3 issue cannot arise at the moment when it is imposed. Instead, the court agrees with the Court of Appeal in Bieber and the House of Lords in Wellington that an Article 3 issue will only arise when it can be shown:
(i) that the applicant’s continued imprisonment can no longer be justified on any legitimate penological grounds (such as punishment, deterrence, public protection or rehabilitation); and
(ii) as the Grand Chamber stated in Kafkaris . . the sentence is reducible de facto and de jure’.
The circumstances in which the solitary confinement of prisoners will violate article 3 are well established in ECHR case law: ‘Solitary confinement is one of the most serious measures which can be imposed within a prison and, as the Committee for the Prevention of Torture has stated, all forms of solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation are likely, in the long term, to have damaging effects, resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities. Indeed, as the Committee’s most recent report makes clear, the damaging effect of solitary confinement can be immediate and increases the longer the measure lasts and the more indeterminate it is.
At the same time, however, the court has found that the prohibition of contact with other prisoners for security, disciplinary or protective reasons does not in itself amount to inhuman treatment or punishment. In many states parties to the Convention more stringent security measures, which are intended to prevent the risk of escape, attack or disturbance of the prison community, exist for dangerous prisoners.
Thus, whilst prolonged removal from association with others is undesirable, whether such a measure falls within the ambit of article 3 of the Convention depends on the particular conditions, the stringency of the measure, its duration, the objective pursued and its effects on the person concerned.
In applying these criteria, the court has never laid down precise rules governing the operation of solitary confinement. For example, it has never specified a period of time, beyond which solitary confinement will attain the minimum level of severity required for article 3. The court has, however, emphasised that solitary confinement, even in cases entailing relative isolation, cannot be imposed on a prisoner indefinitely’
Lech Garlicki, P
[2012] ECHR 609, 24027/07, (2013) 56 EHRR 1, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09
Bailii, Bailii Summary
European Convention on Human Rights 8
Human Rights
Citing:
See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jun-2007
(Statement of Facts) The applicants resisted extradition from the respondent country to the USA to face allegations of terrorist related crime. . .
See Also – Ahmad And Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 10-Jul-2007
(Statement of Facts) To resist an extradition application to America to stand trial on various federal charges, the appellants claimed that if they were extradited there was a real prospect that they would be made subject to a determination by the . .
See Also – Ahmad and Aswat v United Kingdom ECHR 6-Jul-2010
It will only be in exceptional circumstances that an applicant’s private or family life in a contracting state will outweigh the legitimate aim pursued by his or her extradition. Recalling that there is no right in the Convention not to be . .
Cited – Harkins And Edwards v The United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jan-2012
Each defendant objected to their proposed extradition to the US, saying that if extradited and convicted they would face the possibility of a death sentence or of a life sentence without the possibility of parole, each being incompatible with . .
Cited by:
Cited – Oakes and Others v Regina CACD 21-Nov-2012
A specially constituted CACD heard sentencing appeals for defendants serving life terms for very grave crimes, and in particular, the judicial assessment of the minimum term to be served by the appellants for the purposes of punishment and . .
Cited – Shahid v Scottish Ministers (Scotland) SC 14-Oct-2015
The appellant convicted of a racially-aggravated vicious murder. Since conviction he had spent almost five years in segregation from other prisoners. The appellant now alleged that some very substantial periods of segregation had been in breach of . .
Cited – Lord Advocate (Representing The Taiwanese Judicial Authorities) v Dean SC 28-Jun-2017
(Scotland) The respondent was to be extradited to Taiwan to serve the balance of a prison term. His appeal succeeded and the order quashed on the basis that his treatment in the Taiwanese prison system would infringe his human rights. The Lord . .
Cited – United States of America v Assange Admn 10-Dec-2021
The USA sought A’s extradition. It had been previously refused on the grounds of expected suicide of A if subjected to US prison conditions.
Held: The order refusing extradition was quashed, and the matter referred to the Magistrates’ Court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Prisons
Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.463499
