Afghanistan

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list and to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

16 November 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Illegal entry - Immigration Detention - Unaccompanied / Separated children | Countries: Afghanistan - Hungary

The applicant complained that the Slovakian authorities, having arrested him after he had crossed from Ukraine, had failed to inform him of the reasons for his arrest, in violation of Article 5 § 2 of the Convention. They had then returned him to Ukraine, where he had been detained in inadequate conditions in disregard of his alleged status as a minor, in breach of Article 3. He had been unable to participate effectively in the proceedings concerning his detention, and had eventually been returned to Afghanistan in the absence of an adequate assessment of the risks he had faced there, in breach of Article 3, Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4, and Article 13 of the Convention. Lastly, he alleged, under Article 34, that an NGO representative had been denied access to him in Ukraine, preventing him from lodging an application for an interim measure with the Court.

11 June 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): Children's rights - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention - Legal representation / Legal aid - Rejected asylum-seekers | Countries: Afghanistan - Slovakia - Ukraine

87 The Minister did not seek to justify PDWL’s continuing detention on any basis other than that a decision had been made under subs 189(1) of the Migration Act. For the reasons just given, subs 189(1) of the Migration Act can provide no justification for the continuing detention of PDWL. It follows that he is currently being unlawfully detained. That state of affairs should be immediately remedied. The appropriate remedy is an order that he be immediately released. I do not consider that it is necessary or useful to express that order in terms of the issue of a writ of habeas corpus, or an order in the nature of habeas corpus. As PDWL has been brought before the Court, it is unnecessary to direct that the Minister or any particular officer who is responsible for his detention release PDWL from detention. It is sufficient that I simply order his release forthwith.

17 March 2020 | Judicial Body: Australia: Federal Court | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Habeas corpus - Immigration Detention - Right to liberty and security | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia

2 May 2016 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Federal Court | Document type: Case Law | 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) | Document type: Case Law | 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 December 2014 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: High Court (England and Wales) | Document type: Case Law | 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

24 June 2014 | Publisher: Amnesty International | Document type: Country News

24 October 2013 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Habeas corpus - Immigration Detention | Countries: Afghanistan - Greece

9 October 2013 | Judicial Body: Switzerland: Tribunal administratif fédéral | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Access to procedures - Immigration Detention - Non-refoulement - Prison or detention conditions - Regional instruments | Countries: Afghanistan - Austria - Hungary - Switzerland

September 2013 | Publisher: Refugee Studies Centre | Document type: Thematic Reports