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").
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.
