Afghanistan

The case concerned the conditions of detention of Syrian, Afghan and Palestinian nationals in the “hotspots” of Vial and Souda (Greece), and the lawfulness of their detention in those camps. The Court considered that the authorities had done all that could reasonably be expected of them in the Vial camp to meet the obligation to provide care and protection to unaccompanied minors. The other applicants had been transferred immediately – or within ten days – from the Vial camp to the Souda camp. The Court also held that the conditions of detention in the Souda camp did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court reiterated its previous finding that a period of one month’s detention in the Vial camp should not be considered excessive, given the time needed to comply with the relevant administrative formalities. In addition, the length of the applicants’ detention once they had expressed their wish to apply for asylum had been relatively short. In contrast, the applicants, who did not have legal assistance, had not been able to understand the content of the information brochure; in particular, they were unable to understand the material relating to the various appeal possibilities available under domestic law.

3 October 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Legal representation / Legal aid - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece - Palestine, State of - Syrian Arab Republic

The principal issues in the appeals concern the meaning and effect of Article 2(n) and Article 28 of Dublin III ("Article 2(n)" and "Article 28", respectively), which relate to the detention of an individual for the purpose of transfer to another Member State under that Regulation. Mr Hemmati and Mr Khalili also raise a distinct issue regarding whether Garnham J was right to hold that their detention was lawful by application of the usual principles of domestic law first adumbrated in Re Hardial Singh [1984] 1 WLR 704 and rehearsed in later authorities such as R (I) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] EWCA Civ 888 and Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245 ("the Hardial Singh principles").

4 October 2018 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales) | Legal Instrument: 2013 Dublin III Regulation (EU) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Bulgaria - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Iraq - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Court found in particular that the applicants had been deprived of their liberty for their first month in the centre, until 21 April 2016 when it became a semi-open centre. The Court was nevertheless of the view that the one-month period of detention, whose aim had been to guarantee the possibility of removing the applicants under the EU-Turkey Declaration, was not arbitrary and could not be regarded as “unlawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (f). However, the applicants had not been appropriately informed about the reasons for their arrest or the remedies available in order to challenge that detention.

25 January 2018 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece

2 May 2016 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Burden-sharing and international co-operation - Immigration Detention - Regional instruments | Countries: Afghanistan - Bulgaria - Switzerland

asylum seekers’ detention is arbitrary and contrary to their right to liberty if the State fails to demonstrate on an individual basis that their continuous indefinite detention is justified, and that other, less intrusive, measures could not achieve the same end of compliance with the State’s need to respond to security concerns. In addition, the HRC considers that the combination of the arbitrary character and indefinite nature of the authors’ protracted detention, the absence of procedural guarantees to challenge the detention and the difficult conditions of detention, cumulatively inflict serious psychological harm that amount to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” under the ICCPR.

2 May 2016 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Sri Lanka

19 February 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Asylum-seekers - Expulsion | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

19 February 2015 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Deportation / Forcible return - Refoulement | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

19 December 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Immigration Detention - Safe third country - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Italy - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

20 November 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Illegal entry - Prison or detention conditions - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

24 October 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland