A retrospective complaint of extradition to Uzbekistan was made. The applicants sought to resist their extradition from Turkey to Uzbekistan, saying they would be tortured.
Held: Convention states must comply with orders made by the European Court of Human Rights. Turkey had failed to comply with interim measures ordered and was in breach of its duties under art 34. It was not established that the applicants had been denied a fair trial, and accordingly no issue was held to arise under article 6(1) of the Convention.
Citations:
Times 13-Mar-2003, (2003) 14 BHRC 149, 46827/99, [2003] ECHR 68, 46951/99
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 34
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 . .
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Extradition
Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.179810
