Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:07:55.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ahmad and Others v. The United Kingdom (Eur. Ct. H.R.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John T. Parry
John T. Parry*
Affiliation:
Lewis & Clark Law School, Portland, OR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) upheld the extradition of several suspected terrorists to the United States, despite the possibility that if convicted, the suspects could face life sentences and imprisonment or both, in a “supermax” prison. This decision marks another important step in the development of the Court’s Article 3 extradition jurisprudence. It also illustrates the uneasy tension between that jurisprudence and the efforts of European states to cooperate with U.S. anti-terror initiatives.

Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 2013 , pp. 440 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights Web site (visited June 13, 2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110267.

1 Babar Ahmad et al. v. United Kingdom, App. Nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09, 67354/09, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-110267 [hereinafter Ahmad].

2 For Canada and Europe, see John, Dugard & Christine Van den, Wyngaert, Reconciling Extradition with Human Rights , 92 Am. J. Int’l L. 187, 189-91 (1998)Google Scholar. For the United States, see John, T. Parry, International Extradition, the Rule of Non-Inquiry, and the Problem of Sovereignty , 90 B.U. L. Rev. 1973 (2013)Google Scholar.

3 Soering v. United Kingdom, App. No. 14038/88, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 89 (1989), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-57619.

4 Many European countries cooperated with the Bush administration’s requests for assistance with the extrajudicial rendition of suspects. Some countries permitted the establishment of U.S.-run “black sites” in their territory, at which “high value” suspects were held and often coercively interrogated. When these practices came to light, human rights groups, the United Nations, the European Parliament, and the Council of Europe responded with investigations and condemnations. Some national authorities began criminal investigations. Several cases have reached the European Court of Human Rights. Anti-terrorism cooperation between the United States and Europe now takes place much more within existing legal frameworks, specifically including extradition treaties and the European Convention.

5 Chahal v. United Kingdom, App. No. 22414/93, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶¶ 79-82 (1996), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-58004.

6 Ahmad, supra note 1, ¶ 162.

7 Saadi v. Italy, App. No. 37201/06, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 139 (2008), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-85276.

8 Ahmad, supra note 1, ¶ 173.

9 Id. ¶ 170.

10 Id. ¶ 177.

11 Id. ¶ 179.

12 The Court’s ruling did not apply to Applicant Mustafa, because the Court found that his health problems were already so serious that detention at ADX Florence would be “impossible,” and it rejected his claim as inadmissible. Id. ¶ 217.

13 Id. ¶ 221.

14 Id. ¶¶ 222-24.

15 Id. ¶¶ 201-202.

16 Aswat v. United Kingdom, App. No. 17299/12, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶¶ 51, 56, 57 (2013), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-118583.

17 Ahmad, supra note 1, ¶ 238.

18 Id. ¶¶ 239-40.

19 Id. ¶ 242.

20 Id. ¶ 243; see also id. ¶ 244 (discussing Applicant Bary separately because of the number of murder charges he faces and the likelihood that he would face mandatory life sentences).

21 Id. ¶ 243.

22 See Emily, S. Rueb, Extradited Muslim Cleric and 4 Other Terrorism Suspects Appear in American Courts, N.Y. Times (Oct. 6, 2012)Google Scholar, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/nyregion/men-extradited-from-britain-appear-in-court-on-terrorismcharges.html?_r=0.

1 These included: Scharff Smith, P, “Solitary Confinement –History, Practice, and Human Rights Standards” 181 Prison Service Journal 3-11 Google Scholar; Shalev, S., “Inside a Supermax”; 181 Prison Service Journal 21-25 Google Scholar; Cohen, F., “Isolation in Penal Settings: The Isolation-Restraint Paradigm” 22 Journal of Law and Policy 295 Google Scholar; Haney, C., “A Culture of Harm: Taming the Dynamics of Cruelty in Supermax Prisons” 35:8 Criminal Justice and Behaviour 956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Haney, C., “Mental Health Issues in Long-Term Solitary and ‘Supermax’ Confinement” (2003) 49:1 Crime and Delinquency 124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grassian, S., “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement” (2006) 22 Journal of Law and Policy 353 Google Scholar.

2 Johnson, and McGunigall-Smith, , “Life Without Parole, America’s Other Penalty: Notes on Life Under Sentence of Death by Incarceration” 2008 Prison Journal 88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Appleton, and Grover, , “The Pros and Cons of Life Without Parole” 2007 47:4 British Journal of Criminology 597-615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch The Rest of their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders in the United States, 2005 Google Scholar.