Abichou v. Germany

Germany asked Tunisia for diplomatic assurances in notes verbales of 25 March and 6 May 2010 (paragraph 2.6). The Saarland Regional High Court held the extradition lawful on 20 May 2010 and upheld that decision on 12 July 2010: although aware of reports of the risk of torture in Tunisia, “the Court put its trust in the Tunisian Government” (paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9). The Constitutional Court rejected his urgent appeal on 28 July 2010, and the European Court of Human Rights refused an interim measure on 23 August 2010 (paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11). On 25 August 2010 the Committee asked Germany not to extradite him while it considered the complaint, and he was extradited that day (paragraphs 1.2, 1.3 and 2.12).

The Committee held: “Notwithstanding the diplomatic assurances that were provided, the Committee must consider the actual human rights situation in Tunisia at the time of the extradition of the complainant’s husband” (paragraph 11.6). It found that “the authorities of the State party knew or should have known at the time of Onsi Abichou’s extradition that Tunisia routinely resorted to the widespread use of torture against detainees held for political reasons and against detainees charged with ordinary criminal offences”, and that “The fact that diplomatic assurances were obtained was not sufficient grounds for the State party’s decision to ignore this obvious risk, especially since none of the guarantees that were provided related specifically to protection against torture or ill-treatment” (paragraph 11.7).

It added: “The fact that Onsi Abichou was ultimately not subjected to such treatment following his extradition cannot be justifiably used to call into question or minimize, retrospectively, the existence of such a risk at the time of his extradition” (paragraph 11.7).