Saadi v Italy: The rules of the game have not changed

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 534-548

  Moeckli, Daniel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49949088506     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngn017     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002) at 186-7.
2. Aledgwood, 'Al Qaeda, Military Commissions and American Self-Delfence', in Eden and O'Donnell (eds), September 11, 2001: A Turning Point in International and Domestic Law? (Ardsley: Transnational Publishers, 2005) 229 at 250.
3. Prime Minister's press conference, 5 August 2005, available at: http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8041.asp [last accessed 28 May 2008].
4. Ibid.
5. Charles Clarke, Speech to the European Parliament, 7 September 2005, available at http://www.eu2005.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/ Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1115146994906&a= KArticle&aid=1125559979691&date=2005-09-07 [last accessed 28 May 2008].
6. See below Section 1.
7. Application No. 37201/06, Judgment of 28 February 2008.
8. (1989) 11 EHRR 439.
9. Ibid. at para. 91.
10. Ibid. at para. 90.
11. Cruz Varas and Others v Sweden (1992) 14 EHRR 1 at para. 70.
12. 1831-V 1831
13. (1997) 23 EHRR 413.
14. Ibid. at paras 79-80.
15. See, for example, D v United Kingdom 1997-III 777
16. (1997) 24 EHRR 423 at para. 47
17. and N v Finland (2006) 43 EHRR 12 at para. 159.
18. For the UN Human Rights Committee. see Mansour Ahani v Canada (1051/2002), CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002 (2004) at para. 10.10
19. for the UN Committee against Torture, see Tapia Paez v Sweden (39/1996), CAT/C/18/D/39/1996 (1997)
20. IHRR 318 (1998) at para 14
21. and for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, see Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers Within the Canadian Refugee Determination System, 28 February 2000, OEA/Ser.L/V/IL106 doc. 40 rev. at para. 154.
22. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan Regulating the Provision of Undertakings in Respect ot Specified Persons Prior to Deportation, 10 August 2005. The Special immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) held that this memorandum effectively reduced the risk of torture in case of a deportation to Jordan,
23. see Omar Othman (aka Abu Qatada) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, SC/15/2005, 26 February 2007. In April 2008, the Court of Appeal upheld the SIACs decision on this point,
24. see Othman (Jordan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 290.
25. Memorandum of Understanding between the General People's Committee for Foreign Liaison and International Co-operation of the Great Socialist People's Libvan Arab Jamahiriya and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Concerning the Provision of Assurances in Respect of Persons Subject to Deportation, 18 October 2005. The SIAC ruled that this memorandum is not a sufficient safeguard against torture,
26. see DD and AS v Secretary of State far the Home Department, SQ/42/ 2005 and SC/50/2005, 27 April 2007. This decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in April 2008,
27. see AS and DD (Libya) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 289.
28. Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Lebanese Republic Concerning the Provision of Assurances in Respect of Persons Subject to Deportation, 23 December 2005.
29. HL Deb., Vol. 696, col. WA 181 (4 December 2007), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Lord Malloch-Brown.
30. Ibid.
31. See UN Committee against Torture, Agiza v Sweden (233/2003), CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (2005)
32. and UN Human Rights Committee, Alzery v Sweden (1416/2005), CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (2006)
33. IHRR 341(2007).
34. Council of Furope, Steering Committee for Human Rights, Croup of Specialists on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism, Report on first meeting, 16 December 2005, DH-S-TER(2005)018.
35. Council of Europe, Steering Committee for Human Rights, Group of Specialists on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism, Report on second meeting, 3 April 2006, DH-S-TER(22006)005.
36. See Human Rights Watch, Mind the Gap: Diplomatic Assurances and the Erosion of the Global Ban on Torture (2008) at 10, available at: http://hrw.org/wr2k8/diplomatic/index.htm [last accessed 28 May 2008].
37. See supra n. 3.
38. Ramzy v The Netherlands, Application No. 25424/05, Admissibility Decision of 27 May 2008.
39. Application No. 4900/06.
40. Supra n. 7, Concurring Opinion of Judge Myjer, joined by Judge Zagrebelsky.
41. See HC Deb., Vol. 463, col. 264W (17 July 2007), (Mr Byrne). The written observations are available on the website of the International Commission of Jurists, at: http://ejp.icj.org/IMG/UKobservations.pdf [last accessed 28 May 2008].
42. Supra n. 7 at para. 32.
43. Ibid. at para. 52.
44. Ibid. at para. 55.
45. Ibid. at para. 120.
46. Ibid. at para. 137.
47. See supra n. 12 at para. 79 ('The Court is well aware of the immense difficulties faced by States in modern times in protecting their communities from terrorist violence.').
48. See also R (Limbuela) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] EWCA Civ 540 at para. 64.
49. See supra n. 12, Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Gölcüklü, Matscher, Sir John Freeland, Baka, Misfud Bonnici, Gotchev and Levits at para. 1.
50. See supra n. 7 at para. 139.
51. See Articie 15(2), ECHR.
52. Supra n. 7, Concurring Opinion of Judge Zupančič at para. 2.
53. Ibid.
54. Written observations of the United Kingdom, supra n. 29 at 5.
55. Supra n. 7, Concurring Opinion of Judge Zupančič at para. 2.
56. Ibid. at para. 140.
57. Ibid. at para. 142.
58. Ibid. Reference was made to Jabari v Turkey 2000-VIII 149.
59. See, for example, Chahal v United Kingdom, supra n. 12 at paras 99-104
60. Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey 2005-I 293; (2005) 41 EHRR 25 at para. 72
61. and Said v The Netherlands 2005-VI 275; (2006) 43 EHRR 14 at paras 51 and 54.
62. Supra n. 7 at para. 148.
63. See supra n. 47 at paras 76-7.
64. See supra n. 12 at para. 105.
65. Alzery v Sweden, supra n. 21 at para. 11.5
66. and Agiza v Sweden, supra n. 21 at para. 13.4.
67. On the Agiza case, see Joseph, 'Rendering Terrorists and the Convention Against Torture', (2005) 5 Human Rights Law Review 339.
68. Report of the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 30 August 2005, A/60/316 at paras 46 and 51.
69. Ibid. at para. 51.
70. For example, Soering v United Kingdom, supra n. 8 at para. 113
71. and Drozd and Janousek v France and Spain (1992) 14 EHRR 745 at para. 110.
72. But see Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, supra n. 47, Joint Partly Dissenting Opinion of Judges Bratza, Bonello and Hedigan at para. 19.
73. Supra n. 7 at para. 160.
74. Amnesty International, Association for the Prevention of Torture, AIRE Centre, Human Rights Watch, INTERIGHTS, International Commission of Jurists, JUSTICE, Medical Foundation for the Care of the Victims of Torture, Open Society Justice Initiative, REDRESS, World Organization Against Torture (OMCT), Joint Press Release, 'European Court of Human Rights Reaffirms the Absolute Prohibition on Return to Torture', 28 February 2008.
75. Amnesty International Australia, European Court Reaffirms Ban on Torture, 3 March 2008, available at: http://action.amnesty.org.au/ news/comments/9839/[last accessed 28 May 2008].
76. See, for example, Dershowitz, supra n. 1
77. and Bagaric and Clarke, 'Not Enough Official Torture in the World? The Circumstances in Which Torture is Morally Justifiable', (2005) 39 University of San Francisco Law Review 581.
78. Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3 at para. 78.
79. Supra n. 7, Concurring Opinion of Judge Zupančič at para. 2.
80. See, for example, Lester and Beattie, 'Risking Torture', (2005) 6 European Human Rights Law Review 565.
81. See, for example, Stafford v United Kingdom 2002-IV 115; (2002) 35 EHRR 32.
82. Ibid. at para. 68.
83. Supra n. 7 at para. 141.