Case Law

1. The applicant complained that his extradition to China would violate Article 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as – if extradited and tried – he would be at risk of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment; moreover, he would be denied a fair trial. He also complained under Article 5 § 1 that his detention pending extradition was unreasonably long and, therefore, arbitrary.

6 October 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Diplomatic assurances - Extradition - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: China - Poland

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) | Legal Instrument: 1984 Convention against Torture (CAT) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: China - Switzerland

The Court had therefore to examine whether any effective guarantees existed that protected the applicants against arbitrary refoulement by the Bulgarian authorities to China, be it direct or indirect. No destination country had been indicated in the initial decisions for the applicants’ repatriation or in the expulsion decisions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the determination of such a country and the assessment of any risk the applicants would face if returned to China fell to be carried out in the process of implementation of the expulsion decisions. However, such an approach offered no guarantees that the Bulgarian authorities would examine with the necessary rigour the question of the risk the applicants would face if returned to the country they had fled. It was unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities would determine, if at all, the relevant risk. Lastly, there was no indication as to whether, if the authorities chose to send the applicants to a third country, they would properly examine whether they would in turn be sent from there to China without due consideration for the risk of ill‑treatment and even death. In sum, there were no effective guarantees, in the process of implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions against the applicants, that they would not be sent back to China.

20 February 2020 | 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 - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Uighur | Countries: Bulgaria - China

19 August 2014 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | Topic(s): Appeal / Right to appeal - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Political asylum | Countries: China - United States of America

22 July 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Muslim - Prison or detention conditions - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Right to liberty and security - Right to life - Uighur | Countries: China - Türkiye

2 May 2014 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Prison or detention conditions | Countries: China - United States of America

11 December 2013 | Judicial Body: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Forced sterilization / Abortion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: China - United States of America

10 September 2013 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Complementary forms of protection - Credibility assessment - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Housing, land and property rights (HLP) - Persecution based on political opinion - Persecution of family members | Countries: Australia - China

14 June 2011 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Christian - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Australia - China

8 March 2011 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Credibility assessment - Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Persecution based on political opinion - Persecution of family members - Safe country of origin | Countries: Australia