In the case of Chahal v. the United Kingdom (1),
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in pursuance of
Rule 51 of Rules of Court A (2), as a Grand Chamber composed of the
following judges:
Mr R. Ryssdal, President,
Mr R. Bernhardt,
Mr F. Gölcüklü,
Mr F. Matscher,
Mr L.-E. Pettiti,
Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr J. De Meyer,
Mr N. Valticos,
Mr S.K. Martens,
Mrs E. Palm,
Mr J.M. Morenilla,
Sir John Freeland,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici,
Mr J. Makarczyk,
Mr D. Gotchev,
Mr P. Jambrek,
Mr U. Lohmus,
Mr E. Levits,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 March, 30 August and
25 October 1996,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 70/1995/576/662. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission.
2. Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry
into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only
to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They
correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as
amended several times subsequently.
_______________
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the Government of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("the Government")
on 23 August 1995 and by the European Commission of Human Rights
("the Commission") on 13 September 1995, within the three-month period
laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms ("the Convention"). It originated in an application
(no. 22414/93) against the United Kingdom lodged with the Commission
under Article 25 (art. 25) on 27 July 1993 by two Indian nationals,
Mr Karamjit Singh Chahal and Mrs Darshan Kaur Chahal, and by
two British nationals, Miss Kiranpreet Kaur Chahal and
Mr Bikaramjit Singh Chahal.
The Government's application referred to Article 48 (art. 48)
and the Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 46,
art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the United Kingdom recognised
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The
object of the application and the request was to obtain a decision as
to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent
State of its obligations under Articles 3, 5 paras. 1 and 4, 8 and 13
of the Convention (art. 3, art. 5-1, art. 5-4, art. 8, art. 13).
2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with
Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicants stated that
they wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyer
who would represent them (Rule 30).
3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio
Sir John Freeland, the elected judge of British nationality (Article 43
of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President
of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 5 September 1995, in the
presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal,
drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely
Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr B. Walsh, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr N. Valticos,
Mr F. Bigi, Mr D. Gotchev and Mr U. Lohmus (Article 43 in fine of the
Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43).
4. On 24 August 1995 the Government informed the Court that there
were no immediate plans to deport the first applicant, and undertook
to provide the Court with at least two weeks' notice of any intended
deportation of him.
The Government had previously been requested by the Commission
on 1 September 1994, pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, not
to deport the applicant pending the outcome of the proceedings before
the Commission. In accordance with Rule 36 para. 2 of
Rules of Court A, this request remained recommended to the Government.
5. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Bernhardt,
acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government,
the applicants' lawyer and the Delegate of the Commission on the
organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant
to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the
Government's and the applicants' memorials on 15 January 1996.
6. On 28 November 1995, Mr Bernhardt, having consulted the
Chamber, granted leave to Amnesty International, Justice and Liberty
in conjunction with the Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in
Europe ("the AIRE Centre") and the Joint Council for the
Welfare of Immigrants ("JCWI"), all London-based non-governmental
human rights organisations, to submit observations, pursuant to
Rule 37 para. 2. Comments were received from Amnesty International and
from Justice on 15 January 1996, and from Liberty together with the
AIRE Centre and JCWI on 24 January.
7. On 21 February 1996 the Chamber decided to relinquish
jurisdiction forthwith in favour of a Grand Chamber (Rule 51 para. 1).
8. The Grand Chamber to be constituted included ex officio
Mr Ryssdal, President of the Court, Mr Bernhardt, Vice-President of the
Court, and all the other members and the substitute judges
(Mr F. Matscher, Mr A. Spielmann, Mr J.M. Morenilla and Mr E. Levits)
of the Chamber which had relinquished jurisdiction (Rule 51 para. 2 (a)
and (b)). On 24 February 1996, in the presence of the Registrar, the
President drew by lot the names of the seven additional judges called
on to complete the Grand Chamber, namely Mr F. Gölcüklü,
Mr J. De Meyer, Mr S.K. Martens, Mrs E. Palm, Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici and Mr P. Jambrek.
9. Mr Macdonald was unable to take part in the hearing of the case
and was replaced by Mr J. Makarczyk.
Subsequent to the hearing, Mr Bigi died. Mr Walsh was also
unable to take part in the further consideration of the case.
10. In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took
place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on
25 March 1996. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr I. Christie, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Agent,
Sir Nicholas Lyell QC, MP, Attorney-General,
Mr J. Eadie, Counsel,
Mr C. Whomersley, Legal Secretariat
to the Law Officers,
Mr D. Nissen, Home Office,
Mr C. Osborne, Home Office,
Mr D. Cooke, Home Office,
Mr J. Crump, Home Office,
Mr J. Marshall, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Advisers;
(b) for the Commission
Mr N. Bratza, Delegate;
(c) for the applicants
Mr N. Blake QC, Counsel,
Mr D. Burgess, Solicitor.
The Court heard addresses by Mr Bratza, Mr Blake and
Sir Nicholas Lyell.
11. On 29 March 1996, having regard to their late submission and
the objections made by the Government, the Grand Chamber decided not
to admit to the case file two affidavits filed by the applicants on
21 March 1996.
AS TO THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
A. The applicants
12. The four applicants are members of the same family and are
Sikhs.
The first applicant, Karamjit Singh Chahal, is an
Indian citizen who was born in 1948. He entered the United Kingdom
illegally in 1971 in search of employment. In 1974 he applied to the
Home Office to regularise his stay and on 10 December 1974 was granted
indefinite leave to remain under the terms of an amnesty for illegal
entrants who arrived before 1 January 1973. Since 16 August 1990 he
has been detained for the purposes of deportation in Bedford Prison.
The second applicant, Darshan Kaur Chahal, is also an
Indian citizen who was born in 1956. She came to England on
12 September 1975 following her marriage to the first applicant in
India, and currently lives in Luton with the two children of the
family, Kiranpreet Kaur Chahal (born in 1977) and
Bikaramjit Singh Chahal (born in 1978), who are the third and
fourth applicants. By virtue of their birth in the United Kingdom the
two children have British nationality.
13. The first and second applicants applied for British citizenship
in December 1987. Mr Chahal's request was refused on 4 April 1989 but
that of Mrs Chahal is yet to be determined.
B. Background: the conflict in Punjab
14. Since the partition of India in 1947 many Sikhs have been
engaged in a political campaign for an independent homeland, Khalistan,
which would approximate to the Indian province of Punjab. In the
late 1970s, a prominent group emerged under the leadership of
Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, based at the Golden Temple in
Amritsar, the holiest Sikh shrine. The Government submit that
Sant Bhindranwale, as well as preaching the tenets of orthodox Sikhism,
used the Golden Temple for the accumulation of arms and advocated the
use of violence for the establishment of an independent Khalistan.
15. The situation in Punjab deteriorated following the killing of
a senior police officer in the Golden Temple in 1983. On 6 June 1984
the Indian army stormed the temple during a religious festival, killing
Sant Bhindranwale and approximately 1,000 other Sikhs. Four months
later the Indian Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi, was shot dead by
two Sikh members of her bodyguard. The ensuing Hindu backlash included
the killing of over 2,000 Sikhs in riots in Delhi.
16. Since 1984, the conflict in Punjab has reportedly claimed over
20,000 lives, peaking in 1992 when, according to Indian press reports
collated by the United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
approximately 4,000 people were killed in related incidents in Punjab
and elsewhere. There is evidence of violence and human rights abuses
perpetrated by both Sikh separatists and the security forces
(see paragraphs 45-56 below).
C. Mr Chahal's visit to India in 1984
17. On 1 January 1984 Mr Chahal travelled to Punjab with his wife
and children to visit relatives. He submits that during this visit he
attended at the Golden Temple on many occasions, and saw
Sant Bhindranwale preach there approximately ten times. On one
occasion he, his wife and son were afforded a personal audience with
him. At around this time Mr Chahal was baptised and began to adhere
to the tenets of orthodox Sikhism. He also became involved in
organising passive resistance in support of autonomy for Punjab.
18. On 30 March 1984 he was arrested by the Punjab police. He was
taken into detention and held for twenty-one days, during which time
he was, he contended, kept handcuffed in insanitary conditions, beaten
to unconsciousness, electrocuted on various parts of his body and
subjected to a mock execution. He was subsequently released without
charge.
He was able to return to the United Kingdom on 27 May 1984, and
has not visited India since.
D. Mr Chahal's political and religious activities in the
United Kingdom
19. On his return to the United Kingdom, Mr Chahal became a leading
figure in the Sikh community, which reacted with horror to the storming
of the Golden Temple. He helped organise a demonstration in London to
protest at the Indian Government's actions, became a full-time member
of the committee of the "gurdwara" (temple) in Belvedere (Erith, Kent)
and travelled around London persuading young Sikhs to be baptised.
20. In August 1984 Mr Jasbir Singh Rode entered the United Kingdom.
He was Sant Bhindranwale's nephew, and recognised by Sikhs as his
successor as spiritual leader. Mr Chahal contacted him on his arrival
and toured the United Kingdom with him, assisting at baptisms performed
by him. Mr Rode was instrumental in setting up branches of the
International Sikh Youth Federation ("ISYF") in the United Kingdom, and
the applicant played an important organisational role in this
endeavour. The ISYF was established to be the overseas branch of the
All India Sikh Students' Federation. This latter organisation was
proscribed by the Indian Government until mid-1985, and is reportedly
still perceived as militant by the Indian authorities.
21. In December 1984 Mr Rode was excluded from the United Kingdom
on the ground that he publicly advocated violent methods in pursuance
of the separatist campaign. On his return to India he was imprisoned
without trial until late 1988. Shortly after his release it became
apparent that he had changed his political views; he now argued that
Sikhs should pursue their cause using constitutional methods, a view
which, according to the applicants, was unacceptable to many Sikhs.
The former followers of Mr Rode therefore became divided.
22. In the United Kingdom, according to the Government, this led
to a split in the ISYF along broadly north/south lines. In the north
of England most branches followed Mr Rode, whereas in the south the
ISYF became linked with another Punjab political activist,
Dr Sohan Singh, who continued to support the campaign for an
independent homeland. Mr Chahal and, according to him, all major
figures of spiritual and intellectual standing within the
United Kingdom Sikh community were in the southern faction.
E. Mr Chahal's alleged criminal activities
23. In October 1985 Mr Chahal was detained under the
Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 ("PTA") on
suspicion of involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate the
Indian Prime Minister, Mr Rajiv Gandhi, during an official visit to the
United Kingdom. He was released for lack of evidence.
In 1986 he was arrested and questioned twice (once under the
PTA), because he was believed to be involved in an ISYF conspiracy to
murder moderate Sikhs in the United Kingdom. On both occasions he was
released without charge.
Mr Chahal denied involvement in any of these conspiracies.
24. In March 1986 he was charged with assault and affray following
disturbances at the East Ham gurdwara in London. During the course of
his trial on these charges in May 1987 there was a disturbance at the
Belvedere gurdwara, which was widely reported in the national press.
Mr Chahal was arrested in connection with this incident, and was
brought to court in handcuffs on the final day of his trial. He was
convicted on both charges arising out of the East Ham incident, and
served concurrent sentences of six and nine months.
He was subsequently acquitted of charges arising out of the
Belvedere disturbance.
On 27 July 1992 the Court of Appeal quashed the two convictions
on the grounds that Mr Chahal's appearance in court in handcuffs had
been seriously prejudicial to him.
F. The deportation and asylum proceedings
1. The notice of intention to deport
25. On 14 August 1990 the Home Secretary (Mr Hurd) decided that
Mr Chahal ought to be deported because his continued presence in the
United Kingdom was unconducive to the public good for reasons of
national security and other reasons of a political nature, namely the
international fight against terrorism.
A notice of intention to deport was served on the latter on
16 August 1990. He was then detained for deportation purposes pursuant
to paragraph 2 (2) of Schedule III of the Immigration Act 1971
(see paragraph 64 below) and has remained in custody ever since.
2. Mr Chahal's application for asylum
26. Mr Chahal claimed that if returned to India he had a
well-founded fear of persecution within the terms of the
United Nations 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees
("the 1951 Convention" - see paragraph 61 below) and applied for
political asylum on 16 August 1990. He was interviewed by officials
from the Asylum Division of the Home Office on 11 September 1990 and
his solicitors submitted written representations on his behalf.
He claimed that he would be subjected to torture and
persecution if returned to India, and relied upon the following
matters, inter alia:
(a) his detention and torture in Punjab in 1984
(see paragraph 18 above);
(b) his political activities in the United Kingdom and his
identification with the regeneration of the Sikh religion and the
campaign for a separate Sikh State (see paragraphs 19-22 above);
(c) his links with Sant Bhindranwale and Jasbir Singh Rode;
(see paragraphs 17 and 20 above);
(d) evidence that his parents, other relatives and contacts had
been detained, tortured and questioned in October 1989 about
Mr Chahal's activities in the United Kingdom and that others connected
to him had died in police custody;
(e) the interest shown by the Indian national press in his
alleged Sikh militancy and proposed expulsion from the United Kingdom;
(f) consistent evidence, including that contained in the
reports of Amnesty International, of the torture and murder of those
perceived to be Sikh militants by the Indian authorities, particularly
the Punjab police (see paragraphs 55-56 below).
27. On 27 March 1991 the Home Secretary refused the request for
asylum.
In a letter to the applicant, he expressed the view that the
latter's known support of Sikh separatism would be unlikely to attract
the interest of the Indian authorities unless that support were to
include acts of violence against India. He continued that he was
"not aware of any outstanding charges either in India or
elsewhere against [Mr Chahal] and on the account [Mr Chahal]
has given of his political activities, the Secretary of State
does not accept that there is a reasonable likelihood that he
would be persecuted if he were to return to India. The
media interest in his case may be known by the
Indian authorities and, given his admitted involvement in an
extremist faction of the ISYF, it is accepted that the
Indian Government may have some current and legitimate
interest in his activities".
The Home Secretary did not consider that Mr Chahal's
experiences in India in 1984 had any continued relevance, since that
had been a time of particularly high tension in Punjab.
28. Mr Chahal's solicitors informed the Home Secretary that he
intended to make an application for judicial review of the refusal of
asylum, but would wait until the advisory panel had considered the
national security case against him.
3. The advisory panel
29. Because of the national security elements of the case, there
was no right of appeal against the deportation order (see paragraphs 58
and 60 below). However, on 10 June 1991, the matter was considered by
an advisory panel, chaired by a Court of Appeal judge,
Lord Justice Lloyd, and including a former president of the
Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
30. The Home Office had prepared statements on 5 April and
23 May 1991 containing an outline of the grounds for the notice of
intention to deport, which were sent to the applicant. The principal
points were as follows:
(a) Mr Chahal had been the central figure in directing the
support for terrorism organised by the London-based faction of the ISYF
which had close links with Sikh terrorists in the Punjab;
(b) he had played a leading role in the faction's programme of
intimidation directed against the members of other groups within the
United Kingdom Sikh community;
(c) he had been involved in supplying funds and equipment to
terrorists in Punjab since 1985;
(d) he had a public history of violent involvement in
Sikh terrorism, as evidenced by his 1986 convictions and involvement
in disturbances at the Belvedere gurdwara (see paragraph 24 above).
These disturbances were related to the aim of gaining control of
gurdwara funds in order to finance support and assistance for
terrorist activity in Punjab;
(e) he had been involved in planning and directing
terrorist attacks in India, the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
Mr Chahal was not informed of the sources of and the evidence
for these views, which were put to the advisory panel.
31. In a letter dated 7 June 1991, Mr Chahal's solicitors set out
a written case to be put before the advisory panel, including the
following points:
(a) the southern branch of the ISYF had a membership of less
than 200 and was non-violent both in terms of its aims and history;
(b) the ISYF did not attempt to gain control of gurdwaras in
order to channel funds into terrorism; this was a purely ideological
struggle on the part of young Sikhs to have gurdwaras run according to
Sikh religious values;
(c) Mr Chahal denied any involvement in the disturbances at the
East Ham and Belvedere gurdwaras (see paragraph 24 above) or in any
other violent or terrorist activity in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
32. He appeared before the panel in person, and was allowed to call
witnesses on his behalf, but was not allowed to be represented by a
lawyer or to be informed of the advice which the panel gave to the
Home Secretary (see paragraph 60 below).
33. On 25 July 1991 the Home Secretary (Mr Baker) signed an order
for Mr Chahal's deportation, which was served on 29 July.
4. Judicial review
34. On 9 August 1991 Mr Chahal applied for judicial review of the
Home Secretaries' decisions to refuse asylum and to make the
deportation order. Leave was granted by the High Court on
2 September 1991.
The asylum refusal was quashed on 2 December 1991 and referred
back to the Home Secretary. The court found that the reasoning behind
it was inadequate, principally because the Home Secretary had neglected
to explain whether he believed the evidence of Amnesty International
relating to the situation in Punjab and, if not, the reasons for such
disbelief. The court did not decide on the validity of the
deportation order. Mr Justice Popplewell expressed "enormous anxiety"
about the case.
35. After further consideration, on 1 June 1992 the Home Secretary
(Mr Clarke) took a fresh decision to refuse asylum. He considered that
the breakdown of law and order in Punjab was due to the activities of
Sikh terrorists and was not evidence of persecution within the terms
of the 1951 Convention. Furthermore, relying upon Articles 32 and 33
of that Convention (see paragraph 61 below), he expressed the view
that, even if Mr Chahal were at risk of persecution, he would not be
entitled to the protection of the 1951 Convention because of the threat
he posed to national security.
36. Mr Chahal applied for judicial review of this decision, but
then requested a postponement on 4 June 1992, which was granted.
37. In a letter dated 2 July 1992, the Home Secretary informed the
applicant that he declined to withdraw the deportation proceedings,
that Mr Chahal could be deported to any international airport of his
choice within India and that the Home Secretary had sought and received
an assurance from the Indian Government (which was subsequently
repeated in December 1995) in the following terms:
"We have noted your request to have a formal assurance to the
effect that, if Mr Karamjit Singh Chahal were to be deported
to India, he would enjoy the same legal protection as any
other Indian citizen, and that he would have no reason to
expect to suffer mistreatment of any kind at the hands of the
Indian authorities.
I have the honour to confirm the above."
38. On 16 July 1992 the High Court granted leave to apply for
judicial review of the decisions of 1 June 1992 to maintain the refusal
of asylum and of 2 July 1992 to proceed with the deportation. An
application for bail was rejected on 23 July (the European Court of
Human Rights was not provided with details of this ruling).
39. The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashed Mr Chahal's
1987 convictions on 27 July 1992 (see paragraph 24 above). The
Home Secretary reviewed the case in the light of this development, but
concluded that it was right to proceed with the deportation.
40. The hearing of the application for judicial review took place
between 18 and 21 January 1993. It was refused on 12 February 1993 by
Mr Justice Potts in the High Court, as was a further application for
bail (the European Court of Human Rights was not provided with details
of this ruling either).
41. Mr Chahal appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was
heard on 28 July 1993 and dismissed on 22 October 1993
(R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Chahal
[1994] Immigration Appeal Reports, p. 107).
The court held that the combined effect of the 1951 Convention
and the Immigration Rules (see paragraphs 61-62 below) was to require
the Home Secretary to weigh the threat to Mr Chahal's life or freedom
if he were deported against the danger to national security if he were
permitted to stay. In the words of Lord Justice Nolan:
"The proposition that, in deciding whether the deportation of
an individual would be in the public good, the
Secretary of State should wholly ignore the fact that the
individual has established a well-founded fear of persecution
in the country to which he is to be sent seems to me to be
surprising and unacceptable. Of course there may very well be
occasions when the individual poses such a threat to this
country and its inhabitants that considerations of his
personal safety and well-being become virtually irrelevant.
Nonetheless one would expect that the Secretary of State would
balance the risks to this country against the risks to the
individual, albeit that the scales might properly be weighted
in favour of the former."
The Home Secretary appeared to have taken into account the
evidence that the applicant might be persecuted and it was not possible
for the court to judge whether his decision to deport was irrational
or perverse because it did not have access to the evidence relating to
the national security risk posed by Mr Chahal. As Lord Justice Neill
remarked:
"The court has the right to scrutinise a claim that a person
should be deported in the interests of national security but
in practice this scrutiny may be defective or incomplete if
all the relevant facts are not before the court."
In the absence of evidence of irrationality or perversity, it
was impossible under English law to set aside the Home Secretary's
decision (see paragraph 66 below).
42. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal to the
House of Lords, and this was also refused by the House of Lords on
3 March 1994.
43. Following the report of the Commission, the applicant applied
for temporary release pending the decision of the European Court of
Human Rights, by way of habeas corpus and judicial review proceedings
in the Divisional Court (see paragraph 65 below). The
Secretary of State opposed the application on the following grounds:
"The applicant was detained in August 1990 and served with
notice of intention to deport because the then
Secretary of State was satisfied that he represented a
substantial threat to national security. The
Secretary of State remains satisfied that such a threat
persists ... Given the reasons for the applicant's
deportation, the Secretary of State remains satisfied that his
temporary release from detention would not be justified. He
has concluded the applicant could not be safely released,
subject to restrictions, in view of the nature of the threat
posed by him."
Judgment was given on 10 November 1995
(R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Chahal,
unreported). Mr Justice MacPherson in the Divisional Court rejected
the application for habeas corpus, on the ground that "the detention
per se was plainly lawful because the Secretary of State [had] the
power to detain an individual who [was] the subject of a decision to
make a deportation order". In connection with the application for
judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to detain
Mr Chahal, the Judge remarked:
"I have to look at the decision of the Secretary of State and
judge whether, in all the circumstances, upon the information
available, he has acted unlawfully, or with procedural
impropriety, or perversely to the point of irrationality.
I am wholly unable to say that there is a case for such a
decision, particularly bearing in mind that I do not know the
full material on which the decisions have been made ...
[I]t is obvious and right that in certain circumstances the
Executive must be able to keep secret matters which they deem
to be necessary to keep secret ... There are no grounds, in
my judgment, for saying or even suspecting that there are not
matters which are present in the Secretary of State's mind of
that kind upon which he was entitled to act ..."
G. Current conditions in India and in Punjab
44. The current position with regard to the protection of
human rights in India generally and in Punjab more specifically was a
matter of dispute between the parties. A substantial amount of
evidence was presented to the Court on this issue, some of which is
summarised below.
1. Material submitted by the Government
45. The Government submitted that it appeared from
Indian press reports collated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
that the number of lives lost in Punjab from terrorism had decreased
dramatically. In 1992 the figure was 4,000, in 1993 it was 394, and
in 1994 it was 51. The former Chief Minister of Punjab,
Mr Beant Singh, was assassinated in August 1995; that aside, there was
little terrorist activity and only four terrorist-related deaths in the
region in 1995.
46. Furthermore, democracy had returned to the State: almost all
factions of the Akali Dal, the main Sikh political party, had united
and were set to contest the next general election as one entity and the
Gidderbaha by-election passed off peacefully, with a turn-out of 88%.
47. The United Kingdom High Commission continued to receive
complaints about the Punjab police. However, in recent months these
had related mainly to extortion rather than to politically-motivated
abuses and they were consistently told that there was now little or no
politically-motivated police action in Punjab.
48. Steps had been taken by the Indian authorities to deal with the
remaining corruption and misuse of power in Punjab; for example, there
had been a number of court judgments against police officers, a
"Lok Pal" (ombudsman) had been appointed and the new Chief Minister had
promised to "ensure transparency and accountability". The
Indian National Human Rights Commission ("NHRC"), which had reported
on Punjab (see below) continued to strengthen and develop.
2. The Indian National Human Rights Commission reports
49. The NHRC visited Punjab in April 1994 and reported as follows:
"The complaints of human rights violations made to the
Commission fall broadly into three categories. Firstly, there
were complaints against the police, of arbitrary arrests,
disappearances, custodial deaths and fake encounters resulting
in killings ...
There was near unanimity in the views expressed by the public
at large that terrorism has been contained ... [A] feeling
was now growing that it was time for the police to cease
operating under the cover of special laws. There were very
strong demands for normalising the role and functioning of the
police and for re-establishing the authority of the
District Magistrates over the police. The impression that the
Commission has gathered is that ... the Magistracy at
District level is not at present in a position to inquire into
complaints of human rights violations by the police. In the
public mind there is a prevailing feeling of the police being
above the law, working on its own steam and answerable to
none ... The Commission recommends that the Government
examine this matter seriously and ensure that normalcy is
restored ..."
50. In addition, in its annual report for 1994/1995, the NHRC
recommended, as a matter of priority, a systematic reform, retraining
and reorganisation of the police throughout India, having commented:
"The issue of custodial death and rape, already high in the
priorities of the Commission, was set in the wider context of
the widespread mistreatment of prisoners resulting from
practices that can only be described as cruel, inhuman or
degrading."
3. Reports to the United Nations
51. The reports to the United Nations in 1994 and 1995 of the
Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment and in 1994 of the Special Rapporteur on
extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions and the Working Group
on enforced and involuntary disappearances recounted that human rights
violations on the part of the security forces were widespread in India.
For example, in his 1995 report, the Special Rapporteur on
torture commented on the practice of torture in police custody:
"It is apparent that few incidents, in what is credibly
alleged to be a widespread, if not endemic, phenomenon are
prosecuted and even fewer lead to conviction of the
perpetrators. It is to be noted that very many cases that
come to the attention of the Special Rapporteur are those that
result in death, in other words, those where torture may have
been applied with the most extreme results. This must be a
minority of cases of torture in the country [India]."
4. The United States' Department of State reports
52. The 1995 United States' Department of State report on India
told of human rights abuses perpetrated by the Punjab police acting
outside their home State:
"Punjab police hit teams again in 1994 pursued Sikh militants
into other parts of India. On June 24, Punjab police shot and
killed Karnail Singh Kaili, a man they identified as a
Sikh terrorist ... in West Bengal. The Government of
West Bengal claimed that it had not been informed of the
presence of Punjab police in West Bengal, seized Kaili's body
and weapons and barred the departure of the police team until
the Punjab Chief Minister apologised."
53. In contrast, the most recent Department of State report
(March 1996) declared that insurgent violence had largely disappeared
in Punjab and that there was visible progress in correcting patterns
of abuse by the police. It continued:
"Killings of Sikh militants by police in armed encounters
appear to be virtually at an end. During the first
eight months of [1995], only two persons were killed in
police encounters. Attention was focused on past abuses in
Punjab by press reports that hundreds of bodies, many
allegedly those of persons who died in unacknowledged
police custody, were cremated as 'unclaimed' during 1991-1993
or discovered at the bottom of recently drained canals."
5. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal
54. The United Kingdom Immigration Appeal Tribunal took account of
allegations of the extra-territorial activities of the Punjab police
in the case of Charan Singh Gill v. Secretary of State for the
Home Department (14 November 1994, unreported), which related to an
appeal by a politically active Sikh against the Secretary of State's
refusal to grant him political asylum. The appellant drew the
attention of the tribunal to a story in the Punjab Times of
10 May 1994, which reported the killing by the Punjab police of
two Sikh fighters in West Bengal. The chairman of the tribunal
remarked:
"We should say that we do not accept [the representative of
the Home Office's] view of this document, that it was more
probably based on imaginative journalism than on fact. In our
view, it affords valuable retrospective corroboration of the
material set out above, demonstrating that the Punjab police
are very much a law unto themselves, and are ready to track
down anyone they regard as subversive, as and when the mood
takes them, anywhere in India."
6. The reports of Amnesty International
55. In its report of May 1995, "Punjab police: beyond the bounds
of the law", Amnesty International similarly alleged that the
Punjab police were known to have carried out abductions and executions
of suspected Sikh militants in other Indian States outside their
jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in New Delhi had reportedly taken
serious note of the illegal conduct of the Punjab police, publicly
accusing them of "highhandedness and tyranny" and had on several
occasions between 1993 and 1994 ordered investigations into their
activities. Following the killing of a Sikh in Calcutta in May 1994,
which provoked an angry reaction from the West Bengal State Government,
the Union Home Secretary had convened a meeting of all
director generals of police on 5 July 1994 to discuss concerns
expressed by certain States following the intrusion by the
Punjab police into their territories. One of the stated aims of the
meeting was to try to work out a formula whereby the Punjab police
would conduct their operations in cooperation with the respective
State governments.
56. In its October 1995 report, "India: Determining the fate of the
'disappeared' in Punjab", Amnesty International claimed that
high-profile individuals continued to "disappear" in police custody.
Among the examples cited were the general secretary of the human rights
wing of the Sikh political party, the Akali Dal, who was reportedly
arrested on 6 September 1995 and had not been seen since.
II. Relevant domestic and international law and practice
A. Deportation
57. By section 3 (5) (b) of the Immigration Act 1971
("the 1971 Act"), a person who is not a British citizen is liable to
deportation inter alia if the Secretary of State deems this to be
"conducive to the public good".
B. Appeal against deportation and the advisory panel procedure
58. There is a right of appeal to an adjudicator, and ultimately
to an appeal tribunal, against a decision to make a deportation order
(section 15 (1) of the 1971 Act) except in cases where the ground of
the decision to deport was that the deportation would be conducive to
the public good as being in the interests of national security or of
the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for
other reasons of a political nature (section 15(3) of the 1971 Act).
59. This exception was maintained in the
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which came into force in
July 1993.
60. Cases in which a deportation order has been made on
national security or political grounds are subject to a non-statutory
advisory procedure, set out in paragraph 157 of the
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 251
of 1990).
The person concerned is given an opportunity to make written
and/or oral representations to an advisory panel, to call witnesses on
his behalf, and to be assisted by a friend, but he is not permitted to
have legal representation before the panel. The Home Secretary decides
how much information about the case against him may be communicated to
the person concerned. The panel's advice to the Home Secretary is not
disclosed, and the latter is not obliged to follow it.
C. The United Nations 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees
61. The United Kingdom is a party to the
United Nations 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees
("the 1951 Convention"). A "refugee" is defined by Article 1 of the
Convention as a person who is outside the country of his nationality
due to "a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or
political opinion".
Article 32 of the 1951 Convention provides:
"1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully
in their territory save on grounds of national security or
public order.
2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall only be in pursuance
of a decision reached in accordance with due process of
law ..."
Article 33 provides:
"1. No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in
any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where
his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his
race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion.
2. The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be
claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for
regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which
he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a
particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
community of that country."
62. Rule 161 of the Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 251
of 1990) provides that:
"Where a person is a refugee full account is to be taken of
the provisions of the Convention and Protocol relating to the
Status of Refugees ..."
63. In a case where a person to be deported for national security
reasons claims asylum, the Secretary of State must balance the interest
of the individual as a refugee against the risk to national security
(R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte Chahal [1994] Immigration Appeal Reports, p. 107 -
see paragraph 41 above).
D. Detention pending deportation
64. A person may be detained under the authority of the
Secretary of State after the service upon him of a notice of intention
to deport and pending the making of a deportation order, and also after
the making of an order, pending his removal or departure from the
country (paragraphs 2 (2) and (3) of Schedule III to the 1971 Act).
65. Any person in detention is entitled to challenge the lawfulness
of his detention by way of a writ of habeas corpus. This is issued by
the High Court to procure the production of a person in order that the
circumstances of his detention may be inquired into. The detainee must
be released if unlawfully detained (Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and
Habeas Corpus Act 1816, section 1). Only one application for
habeas corpus on the same grounds may be made by an individual in
detention, unless fresh evidence is adduced in support
(Administration of Justice Act 1960, section 14 (2)).
In addition, a detainee may apply for judicial review of the
decision to detain him (see paragraphs 43 above and 66-67 below).
In conjunction with either an application for habeas corpus or
judicial review, it is possible to apply for bail (that is, temporary
release) pending the decision of the court.
E. Judicial review
66. Decisions of the Home Secretary to refuse asylum, to make a
deportation order or to detain pending deportation are liable to
challenge by way of judicial review and may be quashed by reference to
the ordinary principles of English public law.
These principles do not permit the court to make findings of
fact on matters within the province of the Secretary of State or to
substitute its discretion for the Minister's. The court may quash his
decision only if he failed to interpret or apply English law correctly,
if he failed to take account of issues which he was required by law to
address, or if his decision was so irrational or perverse that no
reasonable Secretary of State could have made it
(Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation
[1948] 1 King's Bench Reports, p. 223).
67. Where national security issues are involved, the courts retain
a power of review, but it is a limited one because:
"the decision on whether the requirements of national security
outweigh the duty of fairness in a particular case is a matter
for the Government to decide, not for the courts; the
Government alone has access to the necessary information and
in any event the judicial process is unsuitable for reaching
decisions on national security"
(Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the
Civil Service [1985] Appeal Cases, p. 374, at p. 402).
See also R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte Cheblak [1991] 2 All England Reports, p. 9, where a similar
approach was taken by the Court of Appeal.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
68. In the application of 27 July 1993 (no. 22414/93) to the
Commission (as declared admissible), the first applicant complained
that his deportation to India would expose him to a real risk of
torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of
the Convention (art. 3); that his detention had been too long and that
the judicial control thereof had been ineffective and slow in breach
of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 (art. 5-1, art. 5-4); and that, contrary
to Article 13 (art. 13), he had had no effective domestic remedy for
his Convention claims because of the national security elements in his
case. All the applicants also complained that the deportation of the
first applicant would breach their right to respect for family life
under Article 8 (art. 8), for which Convention claim they had no
effective domestic remedy, contrary to Article 13 (art. 13).
69. On 1 September 1994 the Commission declared the application
admissible. In its report of 27 June 1995 (Article 31) (art. 31) it
expressed the unanimous opinion that there would be violations of
Articles 3 and 8 (art. 3, art. 8) if the first applicant were deported
to India; that there had been a violation of Article 5 para. 1
(art. 5-1) by reason of the length of his detention; and that there had
been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13). The Commission also
concluded (by sixteen votes to one) that it was not necessary to
examine the complaints under Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention
(art. 5-4).
The full text of the Commission's opinion and of the partly
dissenting opinion contained in the report is reproduced as annex to
this judgment (1).
_______________
Note by the Registrar
1. For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed
version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V),
but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.
_______________
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT
70. At the hearing on 25 March 1996 the Government, as they had
done in their memorial, invited the Court to hold that the deportation
order, if implemented, would not amount to a violation of Articles 3
and 8 of the Convention (art. 3, art. 8), and that there had been no
breaches of Articles 5 and 13 (art. 5, art. 13).
71. On the same occasion the applicants reiterated their requests
to the Court, set out in their memorial, to find violations of
Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 (art. 3, art. 5, art. 8, art. 13) and to award
them just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50).
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 3)
72. The first applicant complained that his deportation to India
would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3),
which states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
The Commission upheld this complaint, which the Government
contested.
A. Applicability of Article 3 (art. 3) in expulsion cases
73. As the Court has observed in the past, Contracting States have
the right, as a matter of well-established international law and
subject to their treaty obligations including the Convention, to
control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. Moreover, it
must be noted that the right to political asylum is not contained in
either the Convention or its Protocols (see the Vilvarajah and Others
v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215,
p. 34, para. 102).
74. However, it is well established in the case-law of the Court
that expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under
Article 3 (art. 3), and hence engage the responsibility of that State
under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for
believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real
risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) in
the receiving country. In these circumstances, Article 3 (art. 3)
implies the obligation not to expel the person in question to that
country (see the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989,
Series A no. 161, p. 35, paras. 90-91, the Cruz Varas and Others
v. Sweden judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 28,
paras. 69-70, and the above-mentioned Vilvarajah and Others judgment,
p. 34, para. 103).
The Government contested this principle before the Commission
but accepted it in their pleadings before the Court.
B. Expulsion cases involving an alleged danger to national
security
75. The Court notes that the deportation order against the
first applicant was made on the ground that his continued presence in
the United Kingdom was unconducive to the public good for reasons of
national security, including the fight against terrorism
(see paragraph 25 above). The parties differed as to whether, and if
so to what extent, the fact that the applicant might represent a danger
to the security of the United Kingdom affected that State's obligations
under Article 3 (art. 3).
76. Although the Government's primary contention was that no real
risk of ill-treatment had been established (see paragraphs 88 and 92
below), they also emphasised that the reason for the intended
deportation was national security. In this connection they submitted,
first, that the guarantees afforded by Article 3 (art. 3) were not
absolute in cases where a Contracting State proposed to remove an
individual from its territory. Instead, in such cases, which required
an uncertain prediction of future events in the receiving State,
various factors should be taken into account, including the danger
posed by the person in question to the security of the host nation.
Thus, there was an implied limitation to Article 3 (art. 3) entitling
a Contracting State to expel an individual to a receiving State even
where a real risk of ill-treatment existed, if such removal was
required on national security grounds. The Government based this
submission in the first place on the possibility of implied limitations
as recognised in the Court's case-law, particularly paragraphs 88 and
89 of its above-mentioned Soering judgment. In support, they
furthermore referred to the principle under international law that the
right of an alien to asylum is subject to qualifications, as is
provided for, inter alia, by Articles 32 and 33 of the
United Nations 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees
(see paragraph 61 above).
In the alternative, the threat posed by an individual to the
national security of the Contracting State was a factor to be weighed
in the balance when considering the issues under Article 3 (art. 3).
This approach took into account that in these cases there are varying
degrees of risk of ill-treatment. The greater the risk of
ill-treatment, the less weight should be accorded to the threat to
national security. But where there existed a substantial doubt with
regard to the risk of ill-treatment, the threat to national security
could weigh heavily in the balance to be struck between protecting the
rights of the individual and the general interests of the community.
This was the case here: it was at least open to substantial doubt
whether the alleged risk of ill-treatment would materialise;
consequently, the fact that Mr Chahal constituted a serious threat to
the security of the United Kingdom justified his deportation.
77. The applicant denied that he represented any threat to the
national security of the United Kingdom, and contended that, in any
case, national security considerations could not justify exposing an
individual to the risk of ill-treatment abroad any more than they could
justify administering torture to him directly.
78. The Commission, with whom the intervenors (see paragraph 6
above) agreed, rejected the Government's arguments. It referred to the
Court's Vilvarajah and Others judgment (cited at paragraph 73 above,
p. 36, para. 108) and expressed the opinion that the guarantees
afforded by Article 3 (art. 3) were absolute in character, admitting
of no exception.
At the hearing before the Court, the Commission's Delegate
suggested that the passages in the Court's Soering judgment upon which
the Government relied (see paragraph 76 above) might be taken as
authority for the view that, in a case where there were serious doubts
as to the likelihood of a person being subjected to treatment or
punishment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3), the benefit of that doubt
could be given to the deporting State whose national interests were
threatened by his continued presence. However, the national interests
of the State could not be invoked to override the interests of the
individual where substantial grounds had been shown for believing that
he would be subjected to ill-treatment if expelled.
79. Article 3 (art. 3) enshrines one of the most fundamental values
of democratic society (see the above-mentioned Soering judgment, p. 34,
para. 88). The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced
by States in modern times in protecting their communities from
terrorist violence. However, even in these circumstances, the
Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the victim's
conduct. Unlike most of the substantive clauses of the Convention and
of Protocols Nos. 1 and 4 (P1, P4), Article 3 (art. 3) makes no
provision for exceptions and no derogation from it is permissible under
Article 15 (art. 15) even in the event of a public emergency
threatening the life of the nation (see the Ireland
v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25,
p. 65, para. 163, and also the Tomasi v. France judgment of
27 August 1992, Series A no. 241-A, p. 42, para. 115).
80. The prohibition provided by Article 3 (art. 3) against
ill-treatment is equally absolute in expulsion cases. Thus, whenever
substantial grounds have been shown for believing that an individual
would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to
Article 3 (art. 3) if removed to another State, the responsibility of
the Contracting State to safeguard him or her against such treatment
is engaged in the event of expulsion (see the above-mentioned
Vilvarajah and Others judgment, p. 34, para. 103). In these
circumstances, the activities of the individual in question, however
undesirable or dangerous, cannot be a material consideration. The
protection afforded by Article 3 (art. 3) is thus wider than that
provided by Articles 32 and 33 of the United Nations 1951 Convention
on the Status of Refugees (see paragraph 61 above).
81. Paragraph 88 of the Court's above-mentioned Soering judgment,
which concerned extradition to the United States, clearly and
forcefully expresses the above view. It should not be inferred from
the Court's remarks concerning the risk of undermining the foundations
of extradition, as set out in paragraph 89 of the same judgment, that
there is any room for balancing the risk of ill-treatment against the
reasons for expulsion in determining whether a State's responsibility
under Article 3 (art. 3) is engaged.
82. It follows from the above that it is not necessary for the
Court to enter into a consideration of the Government's untested, but
no doubt bona fide, allegations about the first applicant's terrorist
activities and the threat posed by him to national security.
C. Application of Article 3 (art. 3) in the circumstances of the
case
1. The point of time for the assessment of the risk
83. Although there were differing views on the situation in
India and in Punjab (see paragraphs 87-91 below), it was agreed that
the violence and instability in that region reached a peak in 1992 and
had been abating ever since. For this reason, the date taken by the
Court for its assessment of the risk to Mr Chahal if expelled to India
is of importance.
84. The applicant argued that the Court should consider the
position in June 1992, at the time when the decision to deport him was
made final (see paragraph 35 above). The purpose of the stay on
removal requested by the Commission (see paragraph 4 above) was
to prevent irremediable damage and not to afford the
High Contracting Party with an opportunity to improve its case.
Moreover, it was not appropriate that the Strasbourg organs should be
involved in a continual fact-finding operation.
85. The Government, with whom the Commission agreed, submitted that
because the responsibility of the State under Article 3 of the
Convention (art. 3) in expulsion cases lies in the act of exposing an
individual to a real risk of ill-treatment, the material date for the
assessment of risk was the time of the proposed deportation. Since
Mr Chahal had not yet been expelled, the relevant time was that of the
proceedings before the Court.
86. It follows from the considerations in paragraph 74 above that,
as far as the applicant's complaint under Article 3 (art. 3) is
concerned, the crucial question is whether it has been substantiated
that there is a real risk that Mr Chahal, if expelled, would be
subjected to treatment prohibited by that Article (art. 3). Since he
has not yet been deported, the material point in time must be that of
the Court's consideration of the case. It follows that, although the
historical position is of interest in so far as it may shed light on
the current situation and its likely evolution, it is the present
conditions which are decisive.
2. The assessment of the risk of ill-treatment
(a) The arguments
(i) General conditions
87. It was the applicant's case that the Government's assessment
of conditions in India and Punjab had been profoundly mistaken
throughout the domestic and Strasbourg proceedings. He referred to a
number of reports by governmental bodies and by intergovernmental and
non-governmental organisations on the situation in India generally and
in Punjab in particular, with emphasis on those reports concerning 1994
and 1995 (see paragraphs 49-56 above) and argued that this material
established the contention that human rights abuse in India by the
security forces, especially the police, remained endemic.
In response to the Government's offer to return him to the part
of India of his choice, he asserted that the Punjab police had abducted
and killed militant Sikhs outside their home State in the past.
Although he accepted that there had been some improvements in
Punjab since the peak of unrest in 1992, he insisted that there had
been no fundamental change of regime. On the contrary, what emerged
from the above reports was the continuity of the practices of the
security agencies. In this respect he pointed to the fact that
the director general of the Punjab police, who had been responsible for
many human rights abuses during his term of office between 1992
and 1995, had been replaced upon his retirement by his former deputy
and intelligence chief.
88. The Government contended that there would be no real risk of
Mr Chahal being ill-treated if the deportation order were to be
implemented and emphasised that the latter was to be returned to
whichever part of India he chose, and not necessarily to Punjab.
In this context they pointed out that they regularly monitored the
situation in India through the United Kingdom High Commission in
New Delhi. It appeared from this information that positive
concrete steps had been taken and continued to be taken to deal with
human rights abuses. Specific legislation had been introduced in this
regard; the National Human Rights Commission, which performed an
important function, continued to strengthen and develop; and steps had
been taken by both the executive and judicial authorities to deal with
the remaining misuse of power. The situation in India generally was
therefore such as to support their above contention.
Furthermore, with reference to the matters set out in
paragraphs 45-48 above, they contended that the situation in Punjab had
improved substantially in recent years. They stressed that there was
now little or no terrorist activity in that State. An ombudsman had
been established to look into complaints of misuse of power and the new
Chief Minister had publicly declared the government's intentions to
stamp out human rights abuses. Legal proceedings had been brought
against police officers alleged to have been involved in unlawful
activity.
89. Amnesty International in its written submissions informed the
Court that prominent Sikh separatists still faced a serious risk of
"disappearance", detention without charge or trial, torture and
extrajudicial execution, frequently at the hands of the Punjab police.
It referred to its 1995 report which documented a pattern of
human rights violations committed by officers of the Punjab police
acting in under-cover operations outside their home State
(see paragraph 55 above).
90. The Government, however, urged the Court to proceed with
caution in relation to the material prepared by Amnesty International,
since it was not possible to verify the facts of the cases referred to.
Furthermore, when studying these reports it was tempting to lose sight
of the broader picture of improvement by concentrating too much on
individual cases of alleged serious human rights abuses. Finally,
since the situation in Punjab had changed considerably in recent years,
earlier reports prepared by Amnesty and other organisations were now
of limited use.
91. On the basis of the material before it, the Commission accepted
that there had been an improvement in the conditions prevailing in
India and, more specifically, in Punjab. However, it was unable
to find in the recent material provided by the Government any solid
evidence that the Punjab police were now under democratic control or
that the judiciary had been able fully to reassert its own independent
authority in the region.
(ii) Factors specific to Mr Chahal
92. Those appearing before the Court also differed in their
assessment of the effect which Mr Chahal's notoriety would have on his
security in India.
In the Government's view, the Indian Government were likely to
be astute to ensure that no ill-treatment befell Mr Chahal, knowing
that the eyes of the world would be upon him. Furthermore, in
June 1992 and December 1995 they had sought and received assurances
from the Indian Government (see paragraph 37 above).
93. The applicant asserted that his high profile would increase the
danger of persecution. By taking the decision to deport him on
national security grounds the Government had, as was noted by
Mr Justice Popplewell in the first judicial review hearing
(see paragraph 34 above), in effect publicly branded him a terrorist.
Articles in the Indian press since 1990 indicated that he was regarded
as such in India, and a number of his relatives and acquaintances had
been detained and ill-treated in Punjab because of their connection to
him. The assurances of the Indian Government were of little value
since that Government had shown themselves unable to control the
security forces in Punjab and elsewhere. The applicant also referred
to examples of well-known personalities who had recently "disappeared".
94. For the Commission, Mr Chahal, as a leading Sikh militant
suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism, was likely to be of
special interest to the security forces, irrespective of the part of
India to which he was returned.
(b) The Court's approach
95. Under the Convention system, the establishment and verification
of the facts is primarily a matter for the Commission (Articles 28
para. 1 and 31) (art. 28-1, art. 31). Accordingly, it is only in
exceptional circumstances that the Court will use its powers in this
area (see the Cruz Varas and Others judgment mentioned at paragraph 74
above, p. 29, para. 74).
96. However, the Court is not bound by the Commission's findings
of fact and is free to make its own assessment. Indeed, in cases such
as the present the Court's examination of the existence of a real risk
of ill-treatment must necessarily be a rigorous one, in view of the
absolute character of Article 3 (art. 3) and the fact that it enshrines
one of the fundamental values of the democratic societies making up the
Council of Europe (see the Vilvarajah and Others judgment mentioned at
paragraph 73 above, p. 36, para. 108).
97. In determining whether it has been substantiated that there is
a real risk that the applicant, if expelled to India, would be
subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3), the Court will
assess all the material placed before it and, if necessary, material
obtained of its own motion (see the above-mentioned
Vilvarajah and Others judgment, p. 36, para. 107). Furthermore, since
the material point in time for the assessment of risk is the date of
the Court's consideration of the case (see paragraph 86 above), it will
be necessary to take account of evidence which has come to light since
the Commission's review.
98. In view of the Government's proposal to return Mr Chahal to the
airport of his choice in India, it is necessary for the Court to
evaluate the risk of his being ill-treated with reference to
conditions throughout India rather than in Punjab alone. However, it
must be borne in mind that the first applicant is a well-known
supporter of Sikh separatism. It follows from these observations that
evidence relating to the fate of Sikh militants at the hands of the
security forces outside the State of Punjab is of particular relevance.
99. The Court has taken note of the Government's comments relating
to the material contained in the reports of Amnesty International
(see paragraph 90 above). Nonetheless, it attaches weight to some of
the most striking allegations contained in those reports, particularly
with regard to extrajudicial killings allegedly perpetrated by the
Punjab police outside their home State and the action taken by the
Indian Supreme Court, the West Bengal State Government and the
Union Home Secretary in response (see paragraph 55 above). Moreover,
similar assertions were accepted by the
United Kingdom Immigration Appeal Tribunal in Charan Singh Gill
v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (see paragraph 54 above)
and were included in the 1995 United States' State Department report
on India (see paragraph 52 above). The
1994 National Human Rights Commission's report on Punjab substantiated
the impression of a police force completely beyond the control of
lawful authority (see paragraph 49 above).
100. The Court is persuaded by this evidence, which has been
corroborated by material from a number of different objective sources,
that, until mid-1994 at least, elements in the Punjab police were
accustomed to act without regard to the human rights of suspected
Sikh militants and were fully capable of pursuing their targets into
areas of India far away from Punjab.
101. The Commission found in paragraph 111 of its report that there
had in recent years been an improvement in the protection of
human rights in India, especially in Punjab, and evidence produced
subsequent to the Commission's consideration of the case indicates that
matters continue to advance.
In particular, it would appear that the insurgent violence in
Punjab has abated; the Court notes the very substantial reduction in
terrorist-related deaths in the region as indicated by the respondent
Government (see paragraph 45 above). Furthermore, other encouraging
events have reportedly taken place in Punjab in recent years, such as
the return of democratic elections, a number of court judgments against
police officers, the appointment of an ombudsman to investigate abuses
of power and the promise of the new Chief Minister to "ensure
transparency and accountability" (see paragraphs 46 and 48 above). In
addition, the 1996 United States' State Department report asserts that
during 1995 "there was visible progress in correcting patterns of abuse
by the [Punjab] police" (see paragraph 53 above).
102. Nonetheless, the evidence demonstrates that problems still
persist in connection with the observance of human rights by the
security forces in Punjab. As the respondent Government themselves
recounted, the United Kingdom High Commission in India continues to
receive complaints about the Punjab police, although in recent months
these have related mainly to extortion rather than to politically
motivated abuses (see paragraph 47 above). Amnesty International
alleged that "disappearances" of notable Sikhs at the hands of the
Punjab police continued sporadically throughout 1995 (see paragraph 56
above) and the 1996 State Department report referred to the killing of
two Sikh militants that year (see paragraph 53 above).
103. Moreover, the Court finds it most significant that no concrete
evidence has been produced of any fundamental reform or reorganisation
of the Punjab police in recent years. The evidence referred to above
(paragraphs 49-56) would indicate that such a process was urgently
required, and indeed this was the recommendation of the NHRC
(see paragraph 49 above). Although there was a change in the
leadership of the Punjab police in 1995, the director general who
presided over some of the worst abuses this decade has only been
replaced by his former deputy and intelligence chief (see paragraph 87
above).
Less than two years ago this same police force was carrying out
well-documented raids into other Indian States (see paragraph 100
above) and the Court cannot entirely discount the applicant's claims
that any recent reduction in activity stems from the fact that
key figures in the campaign for Sikh separatism have all either been
killed, forced abroad or rendered inactive by torture or the fear of
torture. Furthermore, it would appear from press reports that evidence
of the full extent of past abuses is only now coming to light
(see paragraph 53 above).
104. Although the Court is of the opinion that Mr Chahal, if
returned to India, would be most at risk from the Punjab security
forces acting either within or outside State boundaries, it also
attaches significance to the fact that attested allegations of serious
human rights violations have been levelled at the police elsewhere in
India. In this respect, the Court notes that the United Nations'
Special Rapporteur on torture has described the practice of torture
upon those in police custody as "endemic" and has complained that
inadequate measures are taken to bring those responsible to justice
(see paragraph 51 above). The NHRC has also drawn attention to the
problems of widespread, often fatal, mistreatment of prisoners and has
called for a systematic reform of the police throughout India
(see paragraph 50 above).
105. Although the Court does not doubt the good faith of the
Indian Government in providing the assurances mentioned above
(paragraph 92), it would appear that, despite the efforts of that
Government, the NHRC and the Indian courts to bring about reform, the
violation of human rights by certain members of the security forces in
Punjab and elsewhere in India is a recalcitrant and enduring problem
(see paragraph 104 above).
Against this background, the Court is not persuaded that the
above assurances would provide Mr Chahal with an adequate guarantee of
safety.
106. The Court further considers that the applicant's high profile
would be more likely to increase the risk to him of harm than
otherwise. It is not disputed that Mr Chahal is well known in India
to support the cause of Sikh separatism and to have had close links
with other leading figures in that struggle (see paragraphs 17 and 20
above). The respondent Government have made serious, albeit untested,
allegations of his involvement in terrorism which are undoubtedly known
to the Indian authorities. The Court is of the view that these factors
would be likely to make him a target of interest for hard-line elements
in the security forces who have relentlessly pursued suspected
Sikh militants in the past (see paragraphs 49-56 above).
107. For all the reasons outlined above, in particular the attested
involvement of the Punjab police in killings and abductions outside
their State and the allegations of serious human rights violations
which continue to be levelled at members of the Indian security forces
elsewhere, the Court finds it substantiated that there is a real risk
of Mr Chahal being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3
(art. 3) if he is returned to India.
Accordingly, the order for his deportation to India would, if
executed, give rise to a violation of Article 3 (art. 3).
II. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 5)
A. Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1)
108. The first applicant complained that his detention pending
deportation constituted a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the
Convention (art. 5-1), which provides (so far as is relevant):
"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following
cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention ... of a person against
whom action is being taken with a view to deportation ..."
109. Mr Chahal has been held in Bedford Prison since 16 August 1990
(see paragraph 25 above). It was not disputed that he had been
detained "with a view to deportation" within the meaning of
Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f). However, he maintained that his
detention had ceased to be "in accordance with a procedure prescribed
by law" for the purposes of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) because of its
excessive duration.
In particular, the applicant complained about the length of
time (16 August 1990 - 27 March 1991) taken to consider and reject his
application for refugee status; the period (9 August 1991 -
2 December 1991) between his application for judicial review of the
decision to refuse asylum and the national court's decision; and the
time required (2 December 1991 - 1 June 1992) for the fresh decision
refusing asylum.
110. The Commission agreed, finding that the above proceedings were
not pursued with the requisite speed and that the detention therefore
ceased to be justified.
111. The Government, however, asserted that the various proceedings
brought by Mr Chahal were dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
112. The Court recalls that it is not in dispute that Mr Chahal has
been detained "with a view to deportation" within the meaning of
Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) (see paragraph 109 above).
Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) does not demand that the detention
of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to
deportation be reasonably considered necessary, for example to prevent
his committing an offence or fleeing; in this respect Article 5
para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) provides a different level of protection from
Article 5 para. 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c).
Indeed, all that is required under this provision (art. 5-1-f)
is that "action is being taken with a view to deportation". It is
therefore immaterial, for the purposes of Article 5 para. 1 (f)
(art. 5-1-f), whether the underlying decision to expel can be justified
under national or Convention law.
113. The Court recalls, however, that any deprivation of liberty
under Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) will be justified only for as
long as deportation proceedings are in progress. If such proceedings
are not prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be
permissible under Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) (see the
Quinn v. France judgment of 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311, p. 19,
para. 48, and also the Kolompar v. Belgium judgment of
24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 55, para. 36).
It is thus necessary to determine whether the duration of the
deportation proceedings was excessive.
114. The period under consideration commenced on 16 August 1990,
when Mr Chahal was first detained with a view to deportation. It
terminated on 3 March 1994, when the domestic proceedings came to an
end with the refusal of the House of Lords to allow leave to appeal
(see paragraphs 25 and 42 above). Although he has remained in custody
until the present day, this latter period must be distinguished because
during this time the Government have refrained from deporting him in
compliance with the request made by the Commission under Rule 36 of its
Rules of Procedure (see paragraph 4 above).
115. The Court has had regard to the length of time taken for the
various decisions in the domestic proceedings.
As regards the decisions taken by the Secretary of State to
refuse asylum, it does not consider that the periods (that is,
16 August 1990 - 27 March 1991 and 2 December 1991 - 1 June 1992) were
excessive, bearing in mind the detailed and careful consideration
required for the applicant's request for political asylum and the
opportunities afforded to the latter to make representations and submit
information (see paragraphs 25-27 and 34-35 above).
116. In connection with the judicial review proceedings before the
national courts, it is noted that Mr Chahal's first application was
made on 9 August 1991 and that a decision was reached on it by
Mr Justice Popplewell on 2 December 1991. He made a second application
on 16 July 1992, which was heard between 18 and 21 December 1992,
judgment being given on 12 February 1993. The Court of Appeal
dismissed the appeal against this decision on 22 October 1993 and
refused him leave to appeal to the House of Lords. The House of Lords
similarly refused leave to appeal on 3 March 1994 (see paragraphs 34,
38 and 40-42 above).
117. As the Court has observed in the context of Article 3 (art. 3),
Mr Chahal's case involves considerations of an extremely serious
and weighty nature. It is neither in the interests of the
individual applicant nor in the general public interest in the
administration of justice that such decisions be taken hastily, without
due regard to all the relevant issues and evidence.
Against this background, and bearing in mind what was at stake
for the applicant and the interest that he had in his claims being
thoroughly examined by the courts, none of the periods complained of
can be regarded as excessive, taken either individually or in
combination. Accordingly, there has been no violation of
Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention (art. 5-1-f) on account of the
diligence, or lack of it, with which the domestic procedures were
conducted.
118. It also falls to the Court to examine whether Mr Chahal's
detention was "lawful" for the purposes of Article 5 para. 1 (f)
(art. 5-1-f), with particular reference to the safeguards provided by
the national system.
Where the "lawfulness" of detention is in issue, including the
question whether "a procedure prescribed by law" has been followed, the
Convention refers essentially to the obligation to conform to the
substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in
addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the
purpose of Article 5 (art. 5), namely to protect the individual from
arbitrariness.
119. There is no doubt that Mr Chahal's detention was lawful under
national law and was effected "in accordance with a procedure
prescribed by law" (see paragraphs 43 and 64 above). However, in view
of the extremely long period during which Mr Chahal has been detained,
it is also necessary to consider whether there existed sufficient
guarantees against arbitrariness.
120. In this context, the Court observes that the applicant has been
detained since 16 August 1990 on the ground, essentially, that
successive Secretaries of State have maintained that, in view of the
threat to national security represented by him, he could not safely be
released (see paragraph 43 above). The applicant has, however,
consistently denied that he posed any threat whatsoever to
national security, and has given reasons in support of this denial
(see paragraphs 31 and 77 above).
121. The Court further notes that, since the Secretaries of State
asserted that national security was involved, the domestic courts were
not in a position effectively to control whether the decisions to keep
Mr Chahal in detention were justified, because the full material on
which these decisions were based was not made available to them
(see paragraph 43 above).
122. However, in the context of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention
(art. 5-1), the advisory panel procedure (see paragraphs 29-32 and 60
above) provided an important safeguard against arbitrariness. This
panel, which included experienced judicial figures (see paragraph 29
above) was able fully to review the evidence relating to the
national security threat represented by the applicant. Although its
report has never been disclosed, at the hearing before the Court the
Government indicated that the panel had agreed with the Home Secretary
that Mr Chahal ought to be deported on national security grounds. The
Court considers that this procedure provided an adequate guarantee that
there were at least prima facie grounds for believing that, if
Mr Chahal were at liberty, national security would be put at risk and
thus that the executive had not acted arbitrarily when it ordered him
to be kept in detention.
123. In conclusion, the Court recalls that Mr Chahal has undoubtedly
been detained for a length of time which is bound to give rise to
serious concern. However, in view of the exceptional circumstances of
the case and the facts that the national authorities have acted with
due diligence throughout the deportation proceedings against him and
that there were sufficient guarantees against the arbitrary deprivation
of his liberty, this detention complied with the requirements of
Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f).
It follows that there has been no violation of Article 5
para. 1 (art. 5-1).
B. Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4)
124. The first applicant alleged that he was denied the opportunity
to have the lawfulness of his detention decided by a national court,
in breach of Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention (art. 5-4), which
provides:
"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or
detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the
lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a
court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful."
He submitted that the reliance placed on
national security grounds as justification for his detention pending
deportation prevented the domestic courts from considering whether it
was lawful and appropriate. However, he developed this argument more
thoroughly in connection with his complaint under Article 13 of the
Convention (art. 13) (see paragraphs 140-41 below).
125. The Commission was of the opinion that it was more appropriate
to consider this complaint under Article 13 (art. 13) and the
Government also followed this approach (see paragraphs 142-43 below).
126. The Court recalls, in the first place, that Article 5 para. 4
(art. 5-4) provides a lex specialis in relation to the more general
requirements of Article 13 (art. 13) (see the
De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of
22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, p. 27, para. 60). It follows that,
irrespective of the method chosen by Mr Chahal to argue his complaint
that he was denied the opportunity to have the lawfulness of his
detention reviewed, the Court must first examine it in connection with
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4).
127. The Court further recalls that the notion of "lawfulness" under
paragraph 4 of Article 5 (art. 5-4) has the same meaning as in
paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), so that the detained person is entitled to a
review of his detention in the light not only of the requirements of
domestic law but also of the text of the Convention, the general
principles embodied therein and the aim of the restrictions permitted
by Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) (see the E. v. Norway judgment of
29 August 1990, Series A no. 181-A, p. 21, para. 49).
The scope of the obligations under Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4)
is not identical for every kind of deprivation of liberty
(see, inter alia, the Bouamar v. Belgium judgment of 29 February 1988,
Series A no. 129, p. 24, para. 60); this applies notably to the extent
of the judicial review afforded. Nonetheless, it is clear that
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) does not guarantee a right to
judicial review of such breadth as to empower the court, on all aspects
of the case including questions of pure expediency, to substitute its
own discretion for that of the decision-making authority. The review
should, however, be wide enough to bear on those conditions which are
essential for the "lawful" detention of a person according to
Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) (see the above-mentioned
E. v. Norway judgment, p. 21, para. 50).
128. The Court refers again to the requirements of Article 5
para. 1 (art. 5-1) in cases of detention with a view to deportation
(see paragraph 112 above). It follows from these requirements that
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) does not demand that the domestic courts
should have the power to review whether the underlying decision to
expel could be justified under national or Convention law.
129. The notion of "lawfulness" in Article 5 para. 1 (f)
(art. 5-1-f) does not refer solely to the obligation to conform to the
substantive and procedural rules of national law; it requires in
addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the
purpose of Article 5 (art. 5) (see paragraph 118 above). The question
therefore arises whether the available proceedings to challenge the
lawfulness of Mr Chahal's detention and to seek bail provided an
adequate control by the domestic courts.
130. The Court recollects that, because national security was
involved, the domestic courts were not in a position to review whether
the decisions to detain Mr Chahal and to keep him in detention were
justified on national security grounds (see paragraph 121 above).
Furthermore, although the procedure before the advisory panel
undoubtedly provided some degree of control, bearing in mind that
Mr Chahal was not entitled to legal representation before the panel,
that he was only given an outline of the grounds for the notice of
intention to deport, that the panel had no power of decision and that
its advice to the Home Secretary was not binding and was not disclosed
(see paragraphs 30, 32 and 60 above), the panel could not be considered
as a "court" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4)
(see, mutatis mutandis, the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of
5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 26, para. 61).
131. The Court recognises that the use of confidential material may
be unavoidable where national security is at stake. This does not
mean, however, that the national authorities can be free from effective
control by the domestic courts whenever they choose to assert that
national security and terrorism are involved (see, mutatis mutandis,
the Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom judgment of
30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, p. 17, para. 34, and the Murray
v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A,
p. 27, para. 58). The Court attaches significance to the fact that,
as the intervenors pointed out in connection with Article 13 (art. 13)
(see paragraph 144 below), in Canada a more effective form of judicial
control has been developed in cases of this type. This example
illustrates that there are techniques which can be employed which both
accommodate legitimate security concerns about the nature and sources
of intelligence information and yet accord the individual a substantial
measure of procedural justice.
132. It follows that the Court considers that neither the
proceedings for habeas corpus and for judicial review of the decision
to detain Mr Chahal before the domestic courts, nor the advisory panel
procedure, satisfied the requirements of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4).
This shortcoming is all the more significant given that Mr Chahal has
undoubtedly been deprived of his liberty for a length of time which is
bound to give rise to serious concern (see paragraph 123 above).
133. In conclusion, there has been a violation of Article 5
para. 4 of the Convention (art. 5-4).
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 8)
134. All four of the applicants complained that if Mr Chahal were
deported to India this would amount to a violation of Article 8 of the
Convention (art. 8), which states (so far as is relevant):
"1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and
family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with
the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance
with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security ..."
135. It was not contested by the Government that the deportation
would constitute an interference with the Article 8 para. 1 (art. 8-1)
rights of the applicants to respect for their family life.
The applicants, for their part, conceded that the interference
would be "in accordance with the law" and would pursue a legitimate aim
for the purposes of Article 8 para. 2 (art. 8-2).
The only material question in this connection was, therefore,
whether the interference (that is, the deportation) would be "necessary
in a democratic society in the interests of national security", within
the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (art. 8-2).
136. The Government asserted that Mr Chahal's deportation would be
necessary and proportionate in view of the threat he represented to the
national security of the United Kingdom and the wide margin of
appreciation afforded to States in this type of case.
137. The applicants denied that Mr Chahal's deportation could be
justified on national security grounds and emphasised that, if there
were cogent evidence that he had been involved in terrorist activity,
a criminal prosecution could have been brought against him in the
United Kingdom.
138. The Commission acknowledged that States enjoy a wide margin of
appreciation under the Convention where matters of national security
are in issue, but was not satisfied that the grave recourse of
deportation was in all the circumstances necessary and proportionate.
139. The Court recalls its finding that the deportation of the
first applicant to India would constitute a violation of Article 3 of
the Convention (art. 3) (see paragraph 107 above). Having no reason
to doubt that the respondent Government will comply with the present
judgment, it considers that it is not necessary to decide the
hypothetical question whether, in the event of expulsion to India,
there would also be a violation of the applicants' rights under
Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8).
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 13)
140. In addition, the applicants alleged that they were not provided
with effective remedies before the national courts, in breach of
Article 13 of the Convention (art. 13), which reads:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before
a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."
141. The applicants maintained that the only remedy available to
them in respect of their claims under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the
Convention (art. 3, art. 5, art. 8) was judicial review, the
advisory panel procedure (see paragraphs 29 and 60 above) being neither
a "remedy" nor "effective".
They submitted, first, that the powers of the English courts
to put aside an executive decision were inadequate in all Article 3
(art. 3) asylum cases, since the courts could not scrutinise the facts
to determine whether substantial grounds had been shown for belief in
the existence of a real risk of ill-treatment in the receiving State,
but could only determine whether the Secretary of State's decision as
to the existence of such a risk was reasonable according to the
"Wednesbury" principles (see paragraph 66 above).
This contention had particular weight in cases where the
executive relied upon arguments of national security. In the instant
case, the assertion that Mr Chahal's deportation was necessary in the
interests of national security entailed that there could be no
effective judicial evaluation of the risk to him of ill-treatment in
India or of the issues under Article 8 (art. 8). That assertion
likewise prevented any effective judicial control on the question
whether the applicant's continued detention was justified.
142. The Government accepted that the scope of judicial review was
more limited where deportation was ordered on national security
grounds. However, the Court had held in the past that, where questions
of national security were in issue, an "effective remedy" under
Article 13 (art. 13) must mean "a remedy that is effective as can be",
given the necessity of relying upon secret sources of information
(see the Klass and Others v. Germany judgment of 6 September 1978,
Series A no. 28, p. 31, para. 69, and the Leander v. Sweden judgment
of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, p. 32, para. 84).
Furthermore, it had to be borne in mind that all the relevant
material, including the sensitive material, was examined by the
advisory panel whose members included two senior judicial figures -
a Court of Appeal judge and a former president of the
Immigration Appeal Tribunal (see paragraph 29 above). The procedure
before the panel was designed, on the one hand, to satisfy the need for
an independent review of the totality of the material on which the
perceived threat to national security was based and, on the other hand,
to ensure that secret information would not be publicly disclosed. It
thus provided a form of independent, quasi-judicial scrutiny.
143. For the Commission, the present case could be distinguished
from that of Vilvarajah and Others (cited at paragraph 73 above, p. 39,
paras. 122-26) where the Court held that judicial review in the
English courts amounted to an effective remedy in respect of the
applicants' Article 3 (art. 3) claims. Because the Secretary of State
invoked national security considerations as grounds for his decisions
to deport Mr Chahal and to detain him pending deportation, the
English courts' powers of review were limited. They could not
themselves consider the evidence on which the Secretary of State had
based his decision that the applicant constituted a danger to
national security or undertake any evaluation of the Article 3
(art. 3) risks. Instead, they had to confine themselves to examining
whether the evidence showed that the Secretary of State had carried out
the balancing exercise required by the domestic law (see paragraph 41
above).
144. The intervenors (see paragraph 6 above) were all of the view
that judicial review did not constitute an effective remedy in cases
involving national security. Article 13 (art. 13) required at least
that some independent body should be appraised of all the facts and
evidence and entitled to reach a decision which would be binding on the
Secretary of State.
In this connection, Amnesty International, Liberty, the
AIRE Centre and JCWI (see paragraph 6 above) drew the Court's attention
to the procedure applied in such cases in Canada. Under the
Canadian Immigration Act 1976 (as amended by the Immigration Act 1988),
a Federal Court judge holds an in camera hearing of all the evidence,
at which the applicant is provided with a statement summarising, as far
as possible, the case against him or her and has the right to be
represented and to call evidence. The confidentiality of
security material is maintained by requiring such evidence to be
examined in the absence of both the applicant and his or her
representative. However, in these circumstances, their place is taken
by a security-cleared counsel instructed by the court, who
cross-examines the witnesses and generally assists the court to test
the strength of the State's case. A summary of the evidence obtained
by this procedure, with necessary deletions, is given to the applicant.
145. The Court observes that Article 13 (art. 13) guarantees the
availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of
the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen
to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of this Article
(art. 13) is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy
allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the
substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate
relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to
the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this
provision (art. 13) (see the Vilvarajah and Others judgment cited at
paragraph 73 above, p. 39, para. 122).
Moreover, it is recalled that in certain circumstances the
aggregate of remedies provided by national law may satisfy the
requirements of Article 13 (art. 13) (see, inter alia, the
above-mentioned Leander judgment, p. 30, para. 77).
146. The Court does not have to examine the allegation of a breach
of Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 5 para. 1
(art. 13+5-1), in view of its finding of a violation of Article 5
para. 4 (art. 5-4) (see paragraph 133 above). Nor is it necessary for
it to examine the complaint under Article 13 in conjunction with
Article 8 (art. 13+8), in view of its finding concerning the
hypothetical nature of the complaint under the latter provision
(art. 8) (see paragraph 139 above).
147. This leaves only the first applicant's claim under Article 3
combined with Article 13 (art. 13+3). It was not disputed that the
Article 3 (art. 3) complaint was arguable on the merits and the Court
accordingly finds that Article 13 (art. 13) is applicable
(see the above-mentioned Vilvarajah and Others judgment, p. 38,
para. 121).
148. The Court recalls that in its Vilvarajah and Others judgment
(ibid., p. 39, paras. 122-26), it found judicial review proceedings to
be an effective remedy in relation to the applicants' complaints under
Article 3 (art. 3). It was satisfied that the English courts could
review a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse asylum and could
rule it unlawful on the grounds that it was tainted with illegality,
irrationality or procedural impropriety (see paragraph 66 above). In
particular, it was accepted that a court would have jurisdiction to
quash a challenged decision to send a fugitive to a country where it
was established that there was a serious risk of inhuman or degrading
treatment, on the ground that in all the circumstances of the case the
decision was one that no reasonable Secretary of State could take
(ibid., para. 123).
149. The Court further recalls that in assessing whether there
exists a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 (art. 3) in
expulsion cases such as the present, the fact that the person is
perceived as a danger to the national security of the respondent State
is not a material consideration (see paragraph 80 above).
150. It is true, as the Government have pointed out, that in the
cases of Klass and Others and Leander (both cited at paragraph 142
above), the Court held that Article 13 (art. 13) only required a remedy
that was "as effective as can be" in circumstances where
national security considerations did not permit the divulging of
certain sensitive information. However, it must be borne in mind that
these cases concerned complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the
Convention (art. 8, art. 10) and that their examination required the
Court to have regard to the national security claims which had been
advanced by the Government. The requirement of a remedy which is "as
effective as can be" is not appropriate in respect of a complaint that
a person's deportation will expose him or her to a real risk of
treatment in breach of Article 3 (art. 3), where the issues concerning
national security are immaterial.
151. In such cases, given the irreversible nature of the harm that
might occur if the risk of ill-treatment materialised and the
importance the Court attaches to Article 3 (art. 3), the notion of an
effective remedy under Article 13 (art. 13) requires independent
scrutiny of the claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing
a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3). This scrutiny
must be carried out without regard to what the person may have done to
warrant expulsion or to any perceived threat to the national security
of the expelling State.
152. Such scrutiny need not be provided by a judicial authority but,
if it is not, the powers and guarantees which it affords are relevant
in determining whether the remedy before it is effective
(see the above-mentioned Leander judgment, p. 29, para. 77).
153. In the present case, neither the advisory panel nor the courts
could review the decision of the Home Secretary to deport Mr Chahal to
India with reference solely to the question of risk, leaving aside
national security considerations. On the contrary, the courts'
approach was one of satisfying themselves that the Home Secretary had
balanced the risk to Mr Chahal against the danger to national security
(see paragraph 41 above). It follows from the above considerations
that these cannot be considered effective remedies in respect of
Mr Chahal's Article 3 (art. 3) complaint for the purposes of Article 13
of the Convention (art. 13).
154. Moreover, the Court notes that in the proceedings before the
advisory panel the applicant was not entitled, inter alia, to legal
representation, that he was only given an outline of the grounds for
the notice of intention to deport, that the panel had no power of
decision and that its advice to the Home Secretary was not binding and
was not disclosed (see paragraphs 30, 32 and 60 above). In these
circumstances, the advisory panel could not be considered to offer
sufficient procedural safeguards for the purposes of Article 13
(art. 13) .
155. Having regard to the extent of the deficiencies of both the
judicial review proceedings and the advisory panel, the Court cannot
consider that the remedies taken together satisfy the requirements of
Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 (art. 13+3).
Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 13
(art. 13).
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 50)
156. The applicants asked the Court to grant them just satisfaction
under Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50), which provides as
follows:
"If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a
legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting
Party is completely or partially in conflict with the
obligations arising from the present Convention, and if the
internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation
to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure,
the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just
satisfaction to the injured party."
A. Non-pecuniary damage
157. The applicants claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage
for the period of detention suffered by Mr Chahal at a rate of
£30,000-£50,000 per annum.
The Government submitted that a finding of violation would be
sufficient just satisfaction in respect of the claim for non-pecuniary
damage.
158. In view of its decision that there has been no violation of
Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) (see paragraph 123 above), the Court makes
no award for non-pecuniary damage in respect of the period of time
Mr Chahal has spent in detention. As to the other complaints, the
Court considers that the findings that his deportation, if carried out,
would constitute a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) and that there have
been breaches of Articles 5 para. 4 and 13 (art. 5-4, art. 13)
constitute sufficient just satisfaction.
B. Legal costs and expenses
159. In addition, the applicants claimed the reimbursement of the
legal costs of the Strasbourg proceedings, totalling £77,755.97
(inclusive of value-added tax, "VAT").
With regard to the legal costs claimed, the Government observed
that a substantial proportion of these were not necessarily incurred
because the applicants had produced a large amount of peripheral
material before the Court. They proposed instead a sum of £20,000,
less legal aid.
160. The Court considers the legal costs claimed by the applicants
to be excessive and decides to award £45,000 (inclusive of VAT), less
the 21,141 French francs already paid in legal aid by the
Council of Europe.
C. Default interest
161. According to the information available to the Court, the
statutory rate of interest applicable in the United Kingdom at the date
of adoption of the present judgment is 8% per annum.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds by twelve votes to seven that, in the event of the
Secretary of State's decision to deport the first applicant to
India being implemented, there would be a violation of
Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3);
2. Holds by thirteen votes to six that there has been no
violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1);
3. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention (art. 5-4);
4. Holds by seventeen votes to two that, having regard to its
conclusion with regard to Article 3 (art. 3), it is not
necessary to consider the applicants' complaint under
Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8);
5. Holds unanimously that there has been a violation of
Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the
Convention (art. 13+3);
6. Holds unanimously that the above findings of violation
constitute sufficient just satisfaction as regards the claim
for compensation for non-pecuniary damage;
7. Holds unanimously
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within
three months, in respect of costs and expenses, £45,000
(forty-five thousand pounds sterling) less
21,141 (twenty-one thousand, one hundred and forty-one)
French francs to be converted into pounds sterling at the rate
applicable on the date of delivery of the present judgment;
(b) that simple interest at an annual rate of 8% shall be
payable from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months
until settlement;
8. Dismisses unanimously the remainder of the claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English and in French and delivered at a public hearing
at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 15 November 1996.
Signed: Rolv RYSSDAL
President
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
In accordance with Article 51 para. 2 of the Convention
(art. 51-2) and Rule 53 para. 2 of Rules of Court A, the following
separate opinions are annexed to this judgment:
(a) concurring opinion of Mr Valticos;
(b) concurring opinion of Mr Jambrek;
(c) partly concurring, partly dissenting opinion of
Mr De Meyer;
(d) joint partly dissenting opinion of Mr Gölcüklü,
Mr Matscher, Sir John Freeland, Mr Baka,
Mr Mifsud Bonnici, Mr Gotchev and Mr Levits;
(e) joint partly dissenting opinion of Mr Gölcüklü and
Mr Makarczyk;
(f) partly dissenting opinion of Mr Pettiti,
(g) joint partly dissenting opinion of Mr Martens and
Mrs Palm.
Initialled: R. R.
Initialled: H. P.
CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS
(Translation)
This opinion refers to the wording used in paragraph 123 of the
Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment, which concerns Article 5
para. 1 (art. 5-1).
While sharing the opinion of the majority of the Grand Chamber
and concurring in their conclusion that there has been no violation of
that provision (art. 5-1), I am unable to agree with the statement in
the first sub-paragraph of paragraph 123 that Mr Chahal's detention
"complied with the requirements of Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f)".
Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) provides that "... No one
shall be deprived of his liberty save [in the case of] ... the
lawful arrest or detention of a person ... against whom action is being
taken with a view to deportation ...". That provision (art. 5-1-f)
must be interpreted in good faith and with common sense, as indeed must
any legal provision. I would have qualms about holding here that a
period of four or five years could really be regarded as "[complying]
with the requirements" of that Article (art. 5-1-f) and as being
"lawful" detention for a transitional and, in principle, limited
period. Admittedly, there were particular reasons in the present case
which prevented the applicant being deported promptly (consideration
of his application for judicial review and, above all, the problem of
whether it was appropriate to deport him to India). But to go from
that to saying that the situation "complied with the requirements" of
Article 5 of the Convention (art. 5) seems to me excessive. However,
one cannot go to the opposite extreme of holding that there has been
a violation of the Convention for the Government were able to point to
reasons of some weight. In my view, it would have been preferable to
say merely that Mr Chahal's detention "was not contrary" to the
requirements of Article 5 (art. 5). That is the reason for my
objection to the wording of paragraph 123.
On the other hand, I agree that, as set out in the Court's
final decision (point 2 of the operative provisions), there has been
no violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE JAMBREK
1. Once more in this case, the Court has had to consider the issue
of the use of confidential material in the domestic courts where
national security is at stake. I agree with the Court's finding that
the domestic proceedings for habeas corpus and for judicial review of
the decision to detain Mr Chahal did not satisfy the requirements of
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4).
I also agree with the Court's reasoning as to the relevant
principles and their application, that is:
(a) that the use of confidential material may be unavoidable where
national security is at stake,
(b) that the national authorities, however, are not free in this
respect from effective control by the domestic courts, and
(c) that there are techniques which can be employed which both
accommodate legitimate security concerns and yet accord the individual
a substantial measure of procedural justice.
This last point, (c), represents a new development in the
Court's case-law and therefore, in my view, deserves special attention.
2. In Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom
(30 August 1990, Series A no. 182, pp. 17-18, paras. 34-35) the Court
pointed to the responsibility of the Government to furnish at least
some facts or information capable of satisfying it that the
arrested person was reasonably suspected of having committed the
alleged offence. The fact that Mr Fox and Ms Campbell both had
previous convictions for acts of terrorism did not convince the Court
that there was "reasonable suspicion", and it therefore held that there
had been a breach of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) (paragraphs 34 and
35).
In the Murray v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 October 1994
(Series A no. 300-A, pp. 27-29, paras. 58-63, passim) the Court
reiterated its Fox, Campbell and Hartley standard, but found that the
conviction in the United States of America of two of Mrs Murray's
brothers of offences connected with the purchase of arms for the
Provisional IRA and her visits to the USA and contacts with her
brothers represented sufficient facts or information to meet the above
standard, in other words, that they provided a plausible and objective
basis for a "reasonable suspicion".
3. I dissented from the majority's view in the Murray judgment
previously cited, pp. 45-47, as regards the violation of Article 5
paras. 1, 2 and 5 (art. 5-1, art. 5-2, art. 5-5). In my partly
dissenting opinion, I held in relation to the issue of "reasonable
suspicion" that the condition of reasonableness was not fulfilled, as
the Government had not succeeded in furnishing "at least some facts or
information" which would satisfy an objective observer that the person
concerned might have committed the offence.
In my opinion in Murray I also anticipated the issue which has
arisen in the present case, to which I refer under 1 (c) supra, when
I posed the question whether "it was possible for the Court to set some
modified standards for `reasonable suspicion' in the context of
emergency laws enacted to combat terrorist crime". By way of a general
reply, I advocated treating evidence in different ways depending on the
degree of its confidentiality.
4. The Court also referred in the Fox, Campbell and Hartley case
to "information which ... cannot ... be revealed to the suspect or
produced in court to support the charge" (paragraph 32). This
distinction in my view raises two relevant questions: first, is it
justifiable to distinguish between revealing information to the suspect
and producing it in court? And secondly, is there a difference between
information made available to the court and information produced in
court which is revealed to the suspect (see also my dissenting opinion
in the Murray case)?
In the present case of Chahal, in discussing the alleged
violation of Article 13 of the Convention (art. 13), the Court refers
to the technique under the Canadian Immigration Act 1976, to which the
intervenors drew attention. There, a Federal Court judge holds an in
camera hearing of all the evidence, while the confidentiality of
security material is maintained by requiring such evidence to be
examined in the absence of both the applicant and his or her
representative. However, in these circumstances, their place is taken
by a security-cleared counsel instructed by the court. A summary of
the evidence, with necessary deletions, is given to the applicant.
5. In my dissenting opinion in the Murray case, I suggested the
following similar approach, couched (partly due to the absence of
information about the Canadian technique) in more general terms, as
representing a compromise between the wish to preserve the
Fox, Campbell and Hartley standard and the need to expand the Court's
reasoning in order to adapt it better to other similar cases.
Thus, I questioned "whether otherwise confidential information
could not be rephrased, reshaped or tailored in order to protect its
source and then be revealed. In this respect the domestic court could
seek an alternative, independent expert opinion, without relying solely
on the assertions of the arresting authority".
6. The purpose of the present concurring opinion is, therefore,
to put this part of the Court's judgment into the context of its
evolving case-law.
The Court may indeed be satisfied, in a future similar case,
that some sensitive information may be produced in the domestic court,
or even during the Strasbourg proceedings, which was and will not be
revealed - at least not in its entirety, and in an unmodified form -
to the suspect or to the detainee.
It will then remain the task of the Court to reconcile the
demands of the adversarial principle with the need to protect
confidentiality of information derived from secret sources pertaining
to national security.
PARTLY CONCURRING, PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER
(Translation)
I. The deportation order
A. Article 3 and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3
(art. 3, art. 13+3)
I entirely agree with the judgment in this respect.
B. Article 8 and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8
(art. 8, art. 13+8)
The Court, having found that the question whether there had
been a violation of the rights set forth in Article 8 of the Convention
(art. 8) was "hypothetical" (see paragraphs 139 and 146 of the
judgment) did not consider it necessary to rule on the Article 8
(art. 8) complaint or on the alleged violation of that provision in
conjunction with Article 13 (art. 13+8).
I wish to point out that in the instant case the question of
the violation of the rights set forth in Article 8 (art. 8) is no more
"hypothetical" than that concerning those under Article 3 (art. 3).
Both arise equally "in the event of the Secretary of State's decision
to deport the first applicant to India being implemented".
Consequently, if we consider one, we must also consider the other.
I agree in substance with the arguments unanimously adopted by
the Commission in paragraphs 134 to 139 of its report and share its
opinion that if the deportation order were enforced, there would be a
violation of the applicants' right to respect for their private and
family life.
I likewise consider that, in the instant case, there would also
be a violation of the right to an effective remedy under Article 13
(art. 13) in respect of their Article 8 (art. 8) rights. The Court's
observations concerning the violation of Article 13 in conjunction with
Article 3 (art. 13+3) are equally valid as regards the alleged
violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 (art. 13+8).
In the instant case these two violations are closely connected
and virtually inseparable. Deporting the first applicant would
constitute a violation of both his personal right not to be subjected
to the practices referred to in Article 3 (art. 3) and all the
applicants' right to respect for their private and family life. The
lack of remedies for challenging the deportation order thus
simultaneously affects each of these rights.
II. The first applicant's detention
A. Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1)
It is true that the first applicant was deprived of his liberty
as part of the deportation proceedings and that initially, in
August 1990, his detention could be considered lawful on this ground.
However, he has been held in prison ever since and it is now
the end of October 1996.
That is clearly excessive.
The "considerations of an extremely serious and weighty nature"
referred to in paragraph 117 of the judgment may be enough to explain
the length of the deportation proceedings. They cannot, however,
justify the length of the detention, any more than the complexity of
criminal proceedings is enough to justify the length of
pre-trial detention.
Moreover, what is in issue here is not, as in the Kolompar
v. Belgium case (judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C),
an instance of extradition requested by another State with respect to
a prison sentence of several years, but rather an order made by the
respondent State for the deportation of a person who, as is stated in
paragraphs 23 and 24 of the judgment, had been convicted there of only
two minor offences, convictions that had since been quashed.
B. Article 5 para. 4 and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 5
(art. 5-4, art. 13+5)
Unlike the Commission, which chose to examine the first
applicant's complaint concerning the lack of sufficient remedies for
challenging his detention from the point of view of Article 13
(art. 13), the Court considered it in the light of Article 5 para. 4
(art. 5-4).
The Court's reasoning is certainly more consistent with both
the letter and the spirit of those provisions (art. 13, art. 5-4).
It should be reiterated first of all that Article 5 para. 4
(art. 5-4) provides that "everyone who is deprived of his liberty by
arrest or detention" is entitled to take proceedings, whereas
Article 13 (art. 13) confers this right upon "everyone whose rights and
freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated". This suggests
that in order to be able to rely on the first provision (art. 5-4),
deprivation of liberty on its own is enough, whereas for the second
(art. 13) to be applicable there must have been a violation of a right
or freedom.
It is also necessary to point out that Article 5 para. 4
(art. 5-4) states that the proceedings must be before a "court",
whereas Article 13 (art. 13) requires more vaguely "an effective remedy
before a national authority".
Lastly, it is of interest to note that, except for the right
of access to a court, which, as the Court has acknowledged since the
Golder v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1975 (Series A
no. 18), is guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6),
Article 5 (art. 5) is the only one of the Convention's substantive
provisions that specifically provides for a right to bring
court proceedings in addition to the right to a trial provided for in
paragraph 3 of the same Article (art. 5-3) in the cases referred to in
paragraph 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c).
The foregoing is a good illustration of how well those who
drafted the Convention understood the need to provide, particularly for
those deprived of their liberty, judicial protection that goes well
beyond the "effective remedy" guaranteed more generally under
Article 13 (art. 13).
It must follow that in cases concerning deprivation of liberty
it is not enough to examine whether there has been a violation of
Article 13 (art. 13) for it to become unnecessary to consider whether
there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4); in such
cases it is only an examination of a possible violation of the latter
provision (art. 5-4) that is necessary.
That is not all.
Article 13 (art. 13), which guarantees a remedy before a
"national authority", must be taken in conjunction with Article 26
(art. 26), which requires "all domestic remedies [to have been]
exhausted" before the Commission may deal with the matter. These
two provisions (art. 13, art. 26) complement each other and demonstrate
that it is first and foremost for the States themselves to punish
violations of the rights and freedoms provided for, the protection
afforded by the Convention institutions being merely secondary.
It is from this point of view that the question whether or not
there is an "effective remedy" as required by Article 13 (art. 13) is
relevant. For the Commission and the Court, the question is of no
importance inasmuch as it relates to "rights and freedoms" which they
consider were not "violated"; that is indeed what is indicated by the
actual wording of the Article (art. 13).
This is certainly not true of the right to a remedy secured by
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) to those deprived of their liberty, who
must always be able to "take proceedings by which the lawfulness of
[their] detention shall be decided speedily by a court and [their]
release ordered if the detention is not lawful". Even if we find their
detention as such to be lawful under Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1), we
are not thereby absolved from the obligation to consider whether the
individual concerned was able to avail himself of a remedy that
satisfied the requirements of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4).
JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES GÖLCÜKLÜ, MATSCHER,
Sir John FREELAND, BAKA, MIFSUD BONNICI, GOTCHEV AND LEVITS
1. We agree with the majority that national security
considerations could not be invoked to justify ill-treatment at the
hands of a Contracting State within its own jurisdiction, and that in
that sense the protection afforded by Article 3 (art. 3) is absolute
in character. But in our view the situation is different where, as in
the present case, only the extra-territorial (or indirect) application
of the Article (art. 3) is at stake. There, a Contracting State which
is contemplating the removal of someone from its jurisdiction to that
of another State may legitimately strike a fair balance between, on the
one hand, the nature of the threat to its national security interests
if the person concerned were to remain and, on the other, the extent
of the potential risk of ill-treatment of that person in the State of
destination. Where, on the evidence, there exists a substantial doubt
as to the likelihood that ill-treatment in the latter State would
indeed eventuate, the threat to national security may weigh heavily in
the balance. Correspondingly, the greater the risk of ill-treatment,
the less weight should be accorded to the security threat.
2. As to the circumstances of the present case, we differ from the
conclusion of the majority on the question whether it has been
substantiated that there is a real risk of Mr Chahal being subjected
to treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) if he were to be returned
to India. We accordingly disagree (and would do so even if we were to
accept the reasoning of the majority as to the point dealt with in
paragraph 1 above) with the finding that, in the event of the decision
to deport him to that country being implemented, there would be a
violation of the Article (art. 3).
3. In the Soering case, the Court was also concerned with the
prospective removal of an applicant to another country. In its
judgment in that case (first cited at paragraph 74 of the present
judgment), the Court stated (p. 35, para. 90) that it "is not normally
for the Convention institutions to pronounce on the existence or
otherwise of potential violations of the Convention. However, where
an applicant claims that a decision to extradite him would, if
implemented, be contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) by reason of its
foreseeable consequences in the requesting country, a departure from
this principle is necessary, in view of the serious and irreparable
nature of the alleged suffering risked, in order to ensure the
effectiveness of the safeguard provided by that Article (art. 3) ..."
4. In that case, the extradition of the applicant was sought by
the requesting State to meet a criminal charge carrying the death
penalty, in circumstances which led the Court to conclude that the
likelihood of his being exposed to the "death row phenomenon" was such
as to bring Article 3 (art. 3) into play. The Court went on to
conclude, after an analysis of what in practice the "death row
phenomenon" would involve in the applicant's case, that his extradition
would expose him to "a real risk of treatment going beyond the
threshold set by Article 3 (art. 3)".
5. The applicant in the Soering case (which also differed on the
facts in that there was no national security issue to be taken into
consideration) was, therefore, in the grip of a legal process involving
risks to him which were significantly easier to predict and assess than
those which would be run by the first applicant in the present case if
he were now to be returned to India. The consequences of the
implementation of the deportation order against the latter are of a
quite different, and much lower, order of foreseeability.
6. In the present case, the Court has had before it a mass of
material about the situation in India and, more specifically, Punjab
from 1990 onwards (although, we would note, none more recent than the
United States Department of State report on India of March 1996 -
see paragraph 53 of the judgment). The Court concludes in
paragraph 86 (and we agree) that "... although the historical position
is of interest in so far as it may shed light on the current situation
and its likely evolution, it is the present conditions which are
decisive".
7. As regards present conditions, it seems clear that there have
in recent years been improvements in the protection of human rights in
India, especially in Punjab, where violence reached a peak in 1992, and
that progress has continued since the Commission's consideration of the
case (see paragraph 101 of the judgment). On the other hand,
allegations persist of serious acts of misconduct by some members of
the Punjab security forces, acting either within or outside the
boundaries of that State, and by some members of other security forces
acting elsewhere in India (paragraphs 102-04). Although the probative
value of some of the material before the Court may be open to question,
we are satisfied that there is enough there to make it impossible to
conclude that there would be no risk to Mr Chahal if he were to be
deported to India, even to a destination outside Punjab if he were to
choose one.
8. The essential difficulty lies in quantifying the risk. In
reaching their assessment, the majority of the Court say that they are
not persuaded that the assurances given by the Indian Government would
provide Mr Chahal with an adequate guarantee of safety and consider
that his high profile would be more likely to increase the risk to him
than otherwise (paragraphs 105 and 106). It is, however, arguable with
equal, if not greater, force that his high profile would afford him
additional protection. In the light of the Indian Government's
assurances and the clear prospect of a domestic and
international outcry if harm were to come to him, there would be
cogent grounds for expecting that, as a law-abiding citizen in India,
he would be treated as none other than that. It could well be that the
existence or extent of any potential threat to him would largely depend
on his own future conduct.
9. Our overall conclusion is that the assessment of the majority
leaves too much room for doubt and that it has not been "substantiated
that there is a real risk" of the first applicant's being subjected to
treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) if he were now to be deported
to India. A higher degree of foreseeability of such treatment than
exists in this case should be required to justify the Court in finding
a potential violation of that Article (art. 3).
10. Otherwise, and given its conclusions on the Article 3 (art. 3)
issue, we agree with the findings of the Court, except Mr Gölcüklü, as
appears from his following separate opinion.
JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES GÖLCÜKLÜ AND MAKARCZYK
(Translation)
We agree with the dissenting opinion of Judge De Meyer as
regards Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) (Part II.A).
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETTITI
(Translation)
I voted in favour of finding a violation of Article 3,
Article 5 para. 4 and Article 13 (art. 3, art. 5-4, art. 13). However,
I strongly disagree with the majority in respect of Article 5 para. 1
(art. 5-1) and consider that there has been a clear and serious
violation of that provision (art. 5-1).
Some weeks earlier, the Court correctly identified the problem
of administrative detention in the case of proceedings covered by the
Geneva Convention of 1951, and within the province of the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ("the UNHCR"). The Court
held that there had been a violation by France on account of the rules
then in force on administrative detention for a period of approximately
twenty days without access to lawyers or any effective judicial review
(see the Amuur v. France judgment of 15 June 1996, Reports of Judgments
and Decisions 1996-III). The second period of detention in the
Chahal case gives rise to the same types of problems.
With respect to the decision taken under the general law to
deport Mr Chahal, it was not disputed that his detention began on
16 August 1990 and that he applied for judicial review.
After his application for asylum as a political refugee had
been refused, a deportation order was made on 25 July 1991 on the basis
of the Geneva Convention. Mr Chahal's detention fell to be considered
by the Court from that angle. There was therefore a confrontation
between the Geneva Convention and the European Convention on
Human Rights, which concern the same member States. States may expel
persons who are denied political refugee status. If difficulties are
encountered (with respect to travel, dangers that might be encountered
on returning, or the search for a safe State or third State), the
person must be placed in administrative detention and not held in an
ordinary prison under a prison regime. In addition, the detention must
be reviewed promptly by the courts (see the Amuur judgment cited
above).
Mr Chahal was not detained as a result of any conviction.
Where an application is made for review, it must be heard
expeditiously, as a matter of urgency. The organisation of review
procedures is governed by the Geneva Convention and UNHCR resolutions.
It is possible to petition the Commission on Human Rights of the
United Nations in that regard. The European Court cannot review the
procedures, but it can consider them under Articles 3 and 5 (art. 3,
art. 5) when a violation is alleged.
It is almost perverse of the majority to argue, as it does,
that since it was the applicant who sought a review, his detention was
justified if the proceedings became protracted. Were this reasoning
to be transposed, an accused who applied for release from custody
pending trial would be told that his detention was justified by the
fact that he had made an application that necessitated proceedings.
Yet liberty of the person is a fundamental right guaranteed by
Article 5 (art. 5). The fact that an application for release is
pending cannot be a ground for detention being prolonged where the
detention is contrary to the provisions of Article 5 (art. 5).
Five years' detention in prison after the deportation order
following the refusal of refugee status: such has been Mr Chahal's lot.
It is obvious that in international law under the
Geneva Convention administrative detention differs from detention under
the general law and must be enforced by measures such as an order for
compulsory residence on administrative premises or in a hotel
(see the Amuur judgment cited above) or house arrest. The
United Nations Covenants and the recommendations of the
United Nations Sub-Committee on questions of human rights of all
persons subjected to any form of detention or imprisonment must be
heeded.
Where a State is faced with a difficulty arising out of the
danger that would be entailed by a return to the country of origin, it
may, if it does not wish to continue to detain the person on its
territory, negotiate the choice of a third country.
In sensitive political cases such as that of Mr Chahal - for
example, those concerning the expulsion of imams and religious leaders
whether fundamentalists or not - European States have found
alternatives by expelling to certain African countries. The
United Kingdom itself has had recourse to such expedients.
The European Convention does not allow States to disregard
their obligations under the Geneva Convention. The Court must be
attentive to problems of potential conflicts between international
inter-State instruments binding the member States of the
Council of Europe.
My opinion on this subject is based on the work of the UNHCR
and on the European Commission's and Court's own decisions.
In the UNHCR publication "Detention and Asylum"
(European Series, vol. 1, no. 4, October 1995) it is stated:
"Article 5 (art. 5) further provides guarantees against undue
prolongation of the detention. Neither the Geneva Convention,
nor the Committee of Ministers guidelines provide for a
maximum duration of the detention of persons seeking asylum.
In its Conclusion No. 44 the UNHCR Executive Committee
recognises the importance of expeditious procedures in
protecting asylum-seekers from unduly prolonged detention.
Article 5, para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f), as interpreted by the
Court, should be understood as containing a safeguard as to
the duration of the detention authorised, since the purpose of
Article 5 (art. 5) as a whole is to protect the individual
from arbitrariness. In its Bozano judgment (18 December 1986,
Series A no. 111, p. 23, para. 54), the Court considered that
this principle was of particular importance with respect to
Article 5, para. 1 (f) of the Convention (art. 5-1-f). This
provision (art. 5-1-f) certainly implies - though it is not
made explicit - that detention of an alien which is justified
by the fact that proceedings concerning him are in progress
can cease to be justified if the proceedings concerned are not
conducted with due diligence.
...
[And, with reference to paragraph III.10 of
Recommendation No. R (94) 5 of the Committee of Ministers on
Guidelines to inspire practices of the member States of the
Council of Europe concerning the arrival of asylum-seekers at
European airports:]
`10. The asylum-seeker can be held in [an appropriate] place
only under the conditions and for the maximum duration
provided for by law.'
Under Article 5 (art. 5), a measure amounting to a deprivation
of liberty will only comply with the requirements of the
Convention if it is legal in domestic law. Article 5 para. 1
(art. 5-1) lays down that any arrest or detention must be
carried out `in accordance with a procedure prescribed by
law'. On this point the Convention first and foremost
requires that any deprivation of liberty must have a legal
basis in domestic law. Deprivation of liberty cannot occur in
the absence of a domestic legal provision expressly
authorising it. It further refers back to this national law
and lays down the obligation to conform to both the
substantive and procedural rules thereof."
As regards decisions on Article 5 (art. 5) of the
European Convention on Human Rights, in the case of Kolompar v. Belgium
(judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C, p. 64, para. 68),
the Commission delivered the following opinion on an extradition
problem, which can be transposed to deportation cases:
"However, the Commission considers that there is also, in the
present case, a problem of State inactivity. The Commission
recalls that Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 5-1)
states that there is a `right to liberty', and that the
exceptions to this right, listed in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f)
of this provision (art. 5-1-a, art. 5-1-b, art. 5-1-c,
art. 5-1-d, art. 5-1-e, art. 5-1-f), have to be narrowly
interpreted (Eur. Court H. R., Winterwerp v. the Netherlands
judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 16, para. 37;
Guzzardi v. Italy judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A
no. 39, p. 36, para. 98). The Commission takes the view that
the State from which extradition is requested must ensure that
there is a fair balance between deprivation of liberty and the
purpose of that measure. Being responsible for the detention
of the individual whose extradition has been requested, this
State must take particular care to ensure that the
prolongation of the extradition procedure does not culminate
in a lack of proportionality between the restriction imposed
on the right to individual liberty protected by Article 5
(art. 5) and its international obligations in respect of
extradition. The Commission therefore considers that, even
assuming total inactivity by the applicant in the said
proceedings, it was the Government's duty to take particular
care to limit the applicant's detention pending
extradition ..."
The Court held in the Kolompar case that there had been no
violation, but that was because of the applicant's prolonged inactivity
and conduct and not because it did not fall within the scope of
Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
It is only in cases where persons who have been refused asylum
commit an offence (for instance, by returning illegally) that they may
be detained in prison.
It is clear from past cases that if proceedings are not
conducted with the requisite diligence, or if detention results from
some misuse of authority, detention ceases to be justifiable under
Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) (application no. 7317/75, Lynas
v. Switzerland, decision of 6 October 1976, Decisions and Reports 6,
p. 167; Z. Nedjati, Human Rights under the European Convention, 1978,
p. 91).
The European Court's judgment of 1 July 1961 in the case of
Lawless v. Ireland (Series A no. 3) also sheds much light on its
case-law concerning the scope of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) - a
major Article of the Convention (art. 5-1) as it secures the liberty
of person.
Admittedly, the Lawless case had as its background a state of
emergency, but that does not alter the philosophy and principles
expressed by the Court.
In particular, the Court said in its judgment on the merits:
"Whereas in the first place, the Court must point out that the
rules set forth in Article 5, paragraph 1 (b) (art. 5-1-b),
and Article 6 (art. 6) respectively are irrelevant to the
present proceedings, the former because G.R. Lawless was not
detained 'for non-compliance with the ... order of a court' or
'in order to secure the fulfilment of [an] obligation
prescribed by law' and the latter because there was no
criminal charge against him; whereas, on this point, the Court
is required to consider whether or not the detention of
G.R. Lawless from 13th July to 11th December 1957 under the
1940 Amendment Act conflicted with the provisions of
Article 5, paragraphs 1 (c) and 3 (art. 5-1-c, art. 5-3);
Whereas, in this connection, the question referred to the
judgment of the Court is whether or not the provisions of
Article 5, paragraphs 1 (c) and 3 (art. 5-1-c, art. 5-3),
prescribe that a person arrested or detained `when it is
reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an
offence' shall be brought before a judge, in other words
whether, in Article 5, paragraph 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c), the
expression `effected for the purpose of bringing him before
the competent judicial authority' qualifies only the words
`on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence' or
also the words `when it is reasonably considered necessary to
prevent his committing an offence';
Whereas the wording of Article 5, paragraph 1 (c)
(art. 5-1-c), is sufficiently clear to give an answer to this
question; whereas it is evident that the expression `effected
for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
legal authority' qualifies every category of cases of arrest
or detention referred to in that sub-paragraph (art. 5-1-c);
whereas it follows that the said clause (art. 5-1-c) permits
deprivation of liberty only when such deprivation is effected
for the purpose of bringing the person arrested or detained
before the competent judicial authority, irrespective of
whether such person is a person who is reasonably suspected of
having committed an offence, or a person whom it is reasonably
considered necessary to restrain from absconding after having
committed an offence;
...
Whereas the meaning thus arrived at by grammatical analysis is
fully in harmony with the purpose of the Convention which is
to protect the freedom and security of the individual against
arbitrary detention or arrest; whereas it must be pointed out
in this connexion that, if the construction placed by the
Court on the aforementioned provisions (art. 5-1-c, art. 5-3)
were not correct, anyone suspected of harbouring an intent to
commit an offence could be arrested and detained for an
unlimited period on the strength merely of an executive
decision without its being possible to regard his arrest or
detention as a breach of the Convention ..." (pp. 51-52,
paras. 12-14)
Under the Geneva Convention, it is for each State to organise
its appeal procedures in respect of matters arising under the
Convention.
The effectiveness of those procedures is reviewable by the
UNHCR and, if necessary, in the event of any shortcomings, may be the
subject of the applications mentioned above.
Among the major western European States, Germany provides a
right of appeal to the ordinary courts. Other States have a special
court or a committee. Such an institution was set up in Belgium only
in 1989 (Standing Committee for Refugee Appeals) and in Sweden in
January 1992 (Aliens Appeals Committee). In the United Kingdom it was
only with the coming into force of the
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 that applicants whose appeals
for asylum had been refused were given a right of appeal (to the
Immigration Appeals Authority). In France there is the
French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (the
"OFPRA") and the Appeals Committee (commission de recours)
(see Bulletin luxembourgeois des droits de l'homme, vol. 5, 1996).
States are not legally bound to grant asylum, but merely not
to send a person to a country where he faces persecution or to one from
which he risks being sent to such a country. This has prompted most
European nations to adopt the practice of returning asylum-seekers
either to a country through which they have transited in order to
travel to the country where they are seeking asylum or else to a "safe
third country".
The Court has firmly found violations of Article 3 and
Article 5 para. 4 (art. 3, art. 5-4). In my opinion, it was equally
necessary for it to find a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1),
in line with its case-law.
As implemented by the British authorities, Mr Chahal's
detention can be likened to an indefinite sentence. In other words,
he is being treated more severely than a criminal sentenced to a
term of imprisonment in that the authorities have clearly refused to
seek a means of expelling him to a third country. The principle
contained in Article 5 (art. 5) of immediately bringing a detained
person before a court is intended to protect liberty and not to serve
as "cover" for detention which has not been justified by a
criminal court. Administrative detention under the Geneva Convention
cannot be extended beyond a reasonable - brief - period necessary for
arranging deportation. The general line taken by the Court in the
Amuur case can, in my view, be adopted in the Chahal case. For this
reason, I have concluded that there has been a violation of
Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1).
So far as Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8) is concerned,
I share the views of Mr De Meyer.
JOINT PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES MARTENS AND PALM
1. We fully agree with the Court's findings in respect of
Articles 3, 5 para. 4, 8 and 13 (art. 3, art. 5-4, art. 8, art. 13).
As to its findings in respect of Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) we
agree with paragraphs 112 to 121 of the judgment.
We cannot accept, however, the Court's findings:
(a) that the procedure before the advisory panel constituted
a sufficient guarantee against arbitrariness; and
(b) that, consequently, the first applicant's detention in this
respect too complied with the requirements of Article 5 para. 1 (f)
(art. 5-1-f) (paragraphs 122 and 123 of the judgment).
2. As the Court rightly remarks in paragraph 112 of its judgment,
Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) does not explicitly demand that the
detention under this provision (art. 5-1-f) be reasonably considered
necessary. This enhances, for this kind of detention, the importance
of the object and purpose of Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) in general,
which is to ensure that no one should be dispossessed of his liberty
in an arbitrary fashion.
3. In this context we firstly note that the domestic courts were
not in a position effectively to control whether the decisions to
detain and to keep detained Mr Chahal were justified
(see paragraphs 41, 43, 121 and 130 of the Court's judgment).
Consequently, the only possible safeguard against arbitrariness under
domestic law was the advisory panel procedure.
4. Having analysed the status of and the proceedings before this
panel the Court finds that this procedure does not meet the
requirements of Article 5 para. 4 (art. 5-4) and of Article 13
(art. 13) (paragraphs 130, 132, 152, 153) of the Convention. We find
it difficult to understand why it did not draw the same conclusion in
the context of Article 5 para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f).
5. However that may be, we note:
(a) that it has not been claimed that the members of the panel
are, as such, independent from the Government;
(b) that the proceedings before the panel are not public, nor
are its findings, which are not even disclosed to the addressee of the
notice of intent to deport;
(c) that in the proceedings before the panel the position of
the addressee of the notice of intent to deport is severely restricted:
he is not entitled to legal representation, he is only given an outline
of the grounds for the notice of intention to deport, he is not
informed of the sources of and the evidence for those grounds;
(d) that the panel has no power of decision and that its advice
is not binding upon the Home Secretary.
6. Taking into account the importance of guarantees against
arbitrariness especially in respect of detention under Article 5
para. 1 (f) (art. 5-1-f) (see paragraph 2 above) as well as the
necessity of uniform standards being applied in this respect to all
member States, we cannot but conclude that, in view of its features
indicated in paragraph 5 above, the panel does not constitute an
adequate guarantee against arbitrariness. The fact that it includes
"experienced judicial figures" (see paragraph 122 of the judgment)
cannot change this conclusion.
7. In sum: the applicant has been deprived of his liberty for more
than six years whilst there were not sufficient guarantees against
arbitrariness. Article 5 para. 1 (art. 5-1) has therefore been
violated.