Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Article 3 – Prohibition of Torture No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. ARTICLE 3 PROHIBITION OF TORTURE AND INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT IDT This right is absolute unqualified and permits no derogations. Art. 3 states that No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment IDT or punishment. Definition of torture and IDT R B v Responsible Medical Officer, Broadmoor Hospital 2005 Court of Appeal held that a detained mental health patient does not have an absolute right to challenge medical treatment decisions under Article 6 right to a fair trial. The court ruled that the Mental Health Act 1983 provides sufficient procedural safeguards, and compulsory treatment decisions made by medical professionals do not require a full judicial hearing. Torture is defined as an aggravated, deliberate, and cruel form of punishment. consider the nature, context, duration, and effects of the treatment. Ireland v UK 1978 – ECtHR examined the British government’s use of the “five techniques” hooding, wallstanding, constant noise, sleep deprivation, and fooddrink deprivation on detainees in Northern Ireland. The Court ruled that these methods constituted inhuman and degrading treatment IDT but did not reach the threshold of torture. Case outlined distinctions in terminology • Inhuman treatment Causes physical or mental suffering, even if it does not result in actual bodily injury. • Degrading treatment Induces fear, anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing the victim beyond what is inherent in lawful detention. Both cause “mental suffering”, but DT more extreme. Case significant in outlining distinction between IDT and torture, though criticized for setting a lower standard for torture. NOTE 1978 case, but was referred back to ECtHR in 2018 on the basis of fresh evidence nevertheless the original decision was upheld. It has not been referred to the Grand Chamber. Aydin v Turkey 1997 ECtHR ruled that Turkey violated Article 3 after a 17yearold girl was raped and otherwise tortured by security forces in detention. Set precedent for recognising rape as torture. Aksoy v Turkey 1996 Likewise, being raped, beaten, stripped, subjected to a “Palestinian hanging” and spun around rapidly was cruel enough to be regarded torture when taken together although rape could have been considered as torture by itself. PRISON CONDITIONS CAN CONSTITUTE IDT Case Law Napier v Scottish Ministers 2005 A cramped cell, lack of running water and toilet that exacerbated the prisoners eczema was held to be IDT. R Spinks v SoS HD 2005 Treating a cancer patient in prison rather than hospital was not IDT. Watling v Chief Constable of Suffolk 2019 A driver was arrested on suspicion of driving while under the influence of drugs he had actually suffered a stroke. The police’s delay in obtaining medical treatment for him did not amount to IDT. Faster medical treatment would have given only a small chance of a better outcome and this was insufficient to engage ECHR. Saba v Italy 2016 A cramped cell may, in itself, amount to IDT. The prison here was significantly overcrowded and the cells were tiny. Torreggiani v Italy 2013 ECtHR ruled that Italy’s prison overcrowding violated Article 3, emphasizing the systemic nature of the issue. The Court issued a pilot judgment, requiring Italy to implement structural reforms to improve detention conditions. Soering v UK 1989 ECtHR ruled that the UK’s extradition of Jens Soering to the U.S., where he faced the death row phenomenon prolonged suffering due to delayed execution constituted IDT. established that extradition can be blocked if the receiving country’s treatment of the individual would breach ECHR. Peers v Greece 2001 A prisoner held in a cramped cell whilst suffering untreated heroin withdrawal, was held to have been subjected to IDT. Vinter and Others v UK 2013 Whole life orders life sentences with no possibility of review were held to be incompatible with art. 3. Since the Secretary of State possesses discretionary power to reduce sentences, ECtHR ruled that there was lack of clarity in English Law regarding the true duration of whole life orders, hence they were incompatible with ECHR. However…AG’s Ref. No. 69 of 2013 – Court of Appeal clarified that English law does allow for the review of whole life orders, as the Secretary of State has the power to release a prisoner in exceptional circumstances under s.30 of the Crime Sentences Act 1997. Ruling directly influenced the ECtHR’s decision in Hutchinson v UK 2017 Hutchinson v UK 2017 ECtHR reconsidered its stance on whole life orders after its earlier ruling in Vinter and Others v UK 2013. They accepted that English law does in fact provide processes of review through the Secretary of State’s discretionary power. As a result, the Court found that whole life orders were not incompatible with Article 3 and their earlier decision was based on misinterpretation of English Law. Deportation Case AM Zimbabwe v SoS for the Home Department 2020 A HIV positive, Zimbabwean appellant had committed serious crimes while lawfully resident in the UK. He challenged a deportation order under Art. 3 IDT since the medication he was taking would be unavailable to him in Zimbabwe, leaving him susceptible to succumbing to AIDS. The Supreme Court held that it was not necessary for death to be imminent instead, a substantial reduction in life expectancy due to lack of medical care was sufficient to engage Article 3. The case was remitted to the Upper Tribunal superior administrative law court for reconsideration. POSITIVE DUTIES Aside from the negative duty to refrain from committing IDT and torture, the State also has a positive duty to investigate behaviour that could amount to a breach of art. 3. The State can be held liable for failing to investigate reported crimes perpetrated by private individuals against each other. E.g. Metropolitan Polices failure to conduct effective investigations into the crimes John Worboy the black cab rapist carried out against many women over several years Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD 2018. The State is also to an extent obligated to prevent IDT or torture being carried out in other States the State’s duty under Article 3 goes beyond prevention within its own borders it also must not send individuals to countries where they may face such treatment. R Q v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2003 Court of Appeal ruled that the detention conditions for asylum seekers and lack of adequate legal safeguards under fasttrack procedures risked subjecting the detainees to IDT in breach of Article 3. This duty exists where there is a high probability the individual may be subject to IDT or torture. SH v UK 2011 ECtHR ruled that the UK violated Art. 3 by detaining a mentally ill individual in a prison rather than providing appropriate medical care in a psychiatric facility. The Court held that the individual’s detention in unsuitable conditions, without adequate treatment for their condition, amounted to degrading treatment. ART. 3 AND EXTRADITION State cannot allow extraditiondeportation of an individual if they’ll face torture or IDT abroad Soering v UK 1989. Chahal v UK 1997 Indian Sikh separatistaffiliate intending to commit terrorism not deported from the UK despite high national security risk, due to high risk of torture by a corrupt police force on his return to India. ECtHR emphasised that the prohibition against torture in Article 3 is absolute, meaning no qualificationsexceptions, even in the interest of national security. Chahal was previously tortured by Punjabi police prior to deportation order hence serious risk upon return. Also violated Art. 54 since he was denied access to a court to challenge his detention AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2023 Concerned the government’s Rwanda asylum policy, which aimed to deport certain asylum seekers to Rwanda rather than processing their claims in the UK. The claimants, including AAA, challenged the policy on the basis that it violated Article 3. The Supreme Court ruled against the UK government, finding that there was a real risk that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be subjected to IDT due to flaws in Rwanda’s asylum system. The Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision that deporting individuals under this policy breached Article 3 and the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Rwanda asylum policy breached Article 3, the Government passed the Safety of Rwanda Asylum and Immigration Act 2024 to override this decision. The Act declared Rwanda a safe country and disapplied sections 2 and 3 of the HRA 1998 in relation to the scheme. However, after the Labour Government was elected in July 2024, it cancelled the Rwanda scheme entirely. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 mandates the removal of individuals who arrive irregularly, except in very limited circumstances, unless they come directly from a country where their life and liberty are threatened. In JR295 for Judicial Review 2024 NIKB 35, the court declared under s.4 of the HRA 1998 that these provisions were incompatible with Article 3. The ruling highlighted that the Act required removal without assessing valid human rights claims, meaning individuals could be deported without determining whether they faced a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. This positive duty is not absolute… R Bagdanavicius v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2005 the UK was not responsible for the harassment that a Roma man would suffer at the hands of particular local Lithuanian residents if extradited to Lithuania. It was held that criminal harm inflicted by nonState agents outside the UK would not be relevant to art. 3 unless the State had failed in its general duty to provide reasonable protection against such criminal acts. ART.3 FAILURE TO REMOVE VULNERABLE CHILDREN AB v Worcestershire County Council Birmingham City Council 2023 a young person brought a claim that they had been subjected to treatment violating art.3 at the hands of their parents when the local authority had failed to remove them to a place of safety. The Court of Appeal held that the lower court was entitled to conclude that there was no immediate risk if the child was left with their parents none of the harm suffered individually or cumulatively was sufficient to amount t o a breach of art.3.