Human rights / Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment

Discrimination; intérêt supérieur de l’enfant; développement de l’enfant; droit de l’enfant d’être entendu dans toute procédure judiciaire ou administrative l’intéressant; protection et assistance humanitaire voulues pour les enfants réfugiés; droit de l’enfant de jouir du meilleur état de santé possible; traitements inhumains ou dégradants

6 October 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

Relying on Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complain that their expulsion to Syria would put them at grave physical risk. Some of the applicants also complain under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that they had no effective domestic remedies in respect of their complaints under Articles 2 and 3 that their detention pending removal was arbitrary and the examination of their complaints against detention orders was not speedy.

14 September 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Right to life | Countries: Russian Federation - Syrian Arab Republic

Examination of the same matter under another procedure of international investigation or settlement; non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Risk of torture upon return to country of origin; non-refoulement

31 August 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: China - Switzerland

Risque pour la vie et risque de torture ou de mauvais traitements en cas d’expulsion vers le pays d’origine

22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

(i)Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 is not to be read to exclude the possibility that Article 3 ECHR could be engaged by conditions of extreme material deprivation. Factors to be considered include the location where the harm arises, and whether it results from deliberate action or omission. (ii) In cases where the material deprivation is not intentionally caused the threshold is the modified N test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The question will be whether conditions are such that there is a real risk that the individual concerned will be exposed to intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy. (iii) The Qualification Directive continues to have direct effect following the UK withdrawal from the EU.

22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Livelihoods | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The court unanimously: Declares the application admissible; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants being denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture in Syria; Holds that it is not necessary to examine whether there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the applicants’ treatment by the Polish authorities during border checks; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention; Holds that Poland has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention; Decides to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it is desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings not to remove the applicants to Belarus – if and when they present themselves at the Polish border crossing – until such time as the present judgment becomes final, or until a further decision is made; Holds (a) that the respondent State is to pay to each of the three applicants, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

8 July 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Poland - Syrian Arab Republic

From the press release (attached): The Court held that the presumption of equivalent protection applied in Mr Moldovan’s case in so far as the two conditions for its application, namely the absence of any margin of manoeuvre on the part of the national authorities and the deployment of the full potential of the supervisory mechanism provided for by European Union (EU) law, were met. The Court therefore confined itself to ascertaining whether or not the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention had been manifestly deficient in the present case, such that this presumption was rebutted. To that end it sought to determine whether there had been a sufficiently solid factual basis requiring the executing judicial authority to find that execution of the EAW would entail a real and individual risk to the applicant of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of his conditions of detention in Romania. In Mr. Bivolaru's case: The Court considered that the executing judicial authority, following a full and in-depth examination of the applicant’s individual situation which demonstrated that it had taken account of his refugee status, had not had a sufficiently solid factual basis to establish the existence of a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to refuse execution of the EAW on that ground. The Court also considered that the description of conditions of detention in Romanian prisons provided by the applicant to the executing judicial authority in support of his request not to execute the EAW had not been sufficiently detailed or substantiated to constitute prima facie evidence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his surrender to the Romanian authorities. In the Court’s view, the executing judicial authority had not been obliged to request additional information from the Romanian authorities. Accordingly, it held that there had not been a solid factual basis for the executing judicial authority to establish the existence of a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to refuse execution of the EAW on those grounds.

25 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: France - Romania

Although the applicant, who had entered Greece illegally, had benefited from satisfactory conditions of detention, the review of the lawfulness of his detention had been inadequate

15 January 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Greece - Turkey

The Court considered that criminalisation of homosexual acts was not sufficient to render return contrary to the Convention. The Court found, however, that the Swiss authorities had failed to adequately assess the risk of ill-treatment for the first applicant as a homosexual person in the Gambia and the availability of State protection against ill-treatment from non-State actors. Several independent authorities noted that the Gambian authorities were unwilling to provide protection for LGBTI people.

17 November 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) | Countries: Gambia - Switzerland