This was a foreign case in Human Rights law terms, concerned with the applicant’s expulsion to Iran. His Art 2 claim failed on the facts. But the claim was not rejected in principle, and having referred to the case law on article 3 the Commission said: ‘The Commission has previously examined the question whether analogous considerations apply to Article 2, in particular whether this provision can also engage the responsibility of a Contracting State where, upon expulsion or other removal, the person’s life is in danger. To this end the Commission reiterated that Article 2 contains two separate though interrelated basic elements. The first sentence of paragraph 1 sets forth the general obligation that the right to life shall be protected by law. The second sentence of this paragraph contains a prohibition of intentional deprivation of life, delimited by the exceptions mentioned in the second sentence itself and in paragraph 2 (Bahaddar v Netherlands (1998) 26 EHRR 278). 60. The Commission finds nothing to indicate that the expulsion of the applicant would amount to a violation of the general obligation contained in the first sentence of paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the Convention. 61. As to the prohibition of intentional deprivation of life, including the execution of a death penalty, the Commission does not exclude that an issue might arise under Article 2 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 in circumstances in which the expelling State knowingly puts the person concerned [at] such high risk of losing his life as for the outcome to be a near-certainty. The Commission considers, however, that a ‘real risk’ – within the meaning of the case law concerning Article 3 (see para 58 above) – of loss of life would not as such necessarily render an expulsion contrary to Article 2 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 6, although it would amount to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (cf. Bahaddar v Netherlands, op. cit., para 78). 62. The Commission has examined the applicant’s allegations but finds it insufficiently substantiated that his expulsion would disclose such a high risk of loss of life as to trigger the applicability of Article 2 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 6.’
(2000) 29 EHRR CD 74, 37014/97, [2000] ECHR 172
Worldlii, Bailii
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – Bahaddar v The Netherlands ECHR 19-Feb-1998
Hudoc Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection allowed (non-exhaustion) . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Special Adjudicator ex parte Ullah; Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 17-Jun-2004
The applicants had had their requests for asylum refused. They complained that if they were removed from the UK, their article 3 rights would be infringed. If they were returned to Pakistan or Vietnam they would be persecuted for their religious . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 August 2021; Ref: scu.165859