Decisions

UN Committee against Torture November 14, 2025 CAT/C/83/D/1121/2022

Disposition The Committee decided “That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention”, having found that “the complainant had an available and effective remedy that he failed to exhaust” (paragraphs 7.6 and 8).

The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees rejected his asylum application on 22 November 2019, and the Augsburg Administrative Court dismissed his appeal on 28 April 2020 (paragraphs 2.3 and 2.5). His second application, based on documents from the Turkish police investigation file, was rejected on 10 March 2021, and the Augsburg court upheld that decision on 20 May 2021 (paragraphs 2.6, 2.7 and 2.10). He did not seek leave to appeal to the Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria, citing a lack of money and that court’s rejection of his earlier appeal (paragraph 2.15). On 11 February 2022 the Committee asked Germany “not to deport the complainant to Türkiye while the communication was being considered by the Committee”, and on 29 May 2025 it “denied a request by the State Party to lift the interim measures” (paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3). It then held that a request for leave to appeal “would have allowed the Higher Administrative Court of Bavaria to examine this new evidence”, that he had not produced “any proof of lack of financial resources or of an attempt to have sought legal aid”, and that “the mere fact of doubting the effectiveness of a remedy does not absolve the complainant from the obligation to exhaust” (paragraphs 7.4 and 7.5).

Convention Against Torture Non-refoulement Deportation Interim measures Exhaustion of remedies

Caution The Committee did not decide whether deportation to Türkiye would expose him to torture. The decision does not record whether he has since been deported, and the Coalition has not read a source that does.

European Court of Human Rights October 13, 2022 Third country: Belarus. Between August 2016 and April 2017 the family went to the crossing at Terespol on twenty-two occasions and then three more times with a written application for international protection, and was each time sent back to Belarus (paragraphs 2 to 4).

Disposition Unanimously: the application admissible; a violation of Article 3; and violations of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 “as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court”. EUR 28,000 to the applicants jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 480 for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed. As a Committee judgment it was final when delivered.

The Court recorded: “At 10.05 a.m. on 13 June 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39, indicating to the Polish Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 27 June 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of the expulsion. Nevertheless, the applicants were returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 6). On 19 June 2017 they came back with an application and a copy of the Court’s letter and were allowed to enter Poland (paragraph 7). Following M.K. and Others v. Poland, the Committee held that “the fact that no proceedings in which the applicants’ applications for international protection could be reviewed had been initiated when the applicants were at the Polish border crossing constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”, and that the authorities “knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 19). It found the other violations “in the light of its findings in previous judgments” (paragraph 21). It rejected the Government’s argument that the family should have appealed against the refusals of entry: such an appeal had no suspensive effect and could not have prevented their return to Belarus (paragraphs 12 to 15).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR

Caution A three-judge Committee decided the case under the Court’s well-established case law. After the applicants were admitted to Poland, the head of the Aliens Office refused them international protection on 20 April 2018 and the Refugee Board upheld the refusal on 2 October 2019 (paragraph 10); the judgment does not record what happened to them after that. Their complaints did not include Article 34 (paragraph 11), so the judgment makes no finding on the interim measure. Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026.

European Court of Human Rights June 30, 2022 Third country: Belarus. Border guards at Terespol turned the family away to Belarus sixteen times between October 2016 and June 2017 (paragraphs 6, 11, 13, 15 and 45). On 25 May 2017 the Belarusian authorities told them that “they had to leave Belarus by 4 June 2017, otherwise they would face deportation” (paragraph 12).

Disposition Unanimously: the application admissible; violations of Article 3, of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, and of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. EUR 28,000 to the applicants jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 750 for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed. The judgment became final on 14 November 2022.

The family went to the crossing at Terespol thirteen times in October and November 2016, and again in March and May 2017 with a written application for international protection (paragraphs 6, 11 and 13). Each time the border guards issued decisions turning them away, recording that they had not said they were at risk of persecution but were trying to emigrate for economic or personal reasons (paragraph 9). The Court recorded: “At 10.10 a.m. on 2 June 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Polish Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 16 June 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of expulsion. Nevertheless, the applicants were returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 15). They came back that afternoon with an application for international protection and a copy of the Court’s letter, and were allowed to enter Poland (paragraph 16). The Court held: “The fact that no proceedings in which the applicants’ applications for international protection could be reviewed were initiated on the sixteen occasions when the applicants were at the Polish border crossing constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”; the Polish authorities “knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 45). The applicants had “attempted to cross a border in a legal manner, using an official checkpoint and subjecting themselves to border checks as required by the relevant law” (paragraph 55), and their case was “an exemplification of a wider State policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus” (paragraph 56).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR

Caution After they were admitted to Poland, the head of the Aliens Office refused them international protection on 14 December 2017, the Refugee Board upheld the refusal on 12 June 2018, and the applicants did not appeal to the administrative courts (paragraph 19). The judgment does not record what happened to them after that. Although they were returned to Belarus after the interim measure had been indicated, the Court made no finding under Article 34: notice of the application was given to the Government only for the complaints under Article 3, Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and Article 13. Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026.

European Court of Human Rights June 30, 2022 Third country: Belarus. The family went to the crossing at Terespol again and again between February and June 2017 and was each time sent back to Belarus (paragraphs 5 to 11). On 17 July 2017 they told the Court that “they had left the area of the Polish border and returned to Russia” (paragraph 16).

Disposition Unanimously: the application admissible; violations of Article 3, of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, and of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; and “there has been a violation of Article 34 of the Convention”. EUR 30,000 to the applicants jointly for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 700 for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed. The judgment became final on 14 November 2022.

From 21 February 2017 the family came to Terespol repeatedly, from April with a written application for international protection, and was refused entry each time (paragraphs 5, 7 and 8). The Court recorded: “At 10.48 a.m. on 16 June 2017 the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Polish Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 30 June 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of expulsion. The applicants were nevertheless returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 10). On 19 June 2017 they came back with a copy of the Court’s letter and a written application for international protection, “clearly expressed a wish to lodge this application”, and were turned away again, while a lawyer sent the application to the Border Guard by email, fax and ePUAP (paragraphs 11 and 12). The Court held that the failure to begin any asylum procedure on “the thirty-three occasions when the applicants were at the Polish border crossing constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention”, and that Poland “knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 42). Their case was “an exemplification of a wider State policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus” (paragraph 53), and Poland breached Article 34 by not complying with the interim measure.

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR Article 34 ECHR

Caution The judgment does not record what happened to the applicants after they returned to Russia; the interim measure was discontinued on 19 July 2017 (paragraph 16). It describes twenty-four visits to the crossing between 21 February and 14 April 2017, eight more in April and May, and two in June (paragraphs 5, 8, 10 and 11), and gives the total as thirty-three (paragraph 42). Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026.

European Court of Human Rights June 14, 2022 Third country: Rwanda, under the asylum partnership arrangement in the memorandum of understanding the United Kingdom entered into with Rwanda on 13 April 2022. He was served with removal directions to Rwanda for 14 June 2022, on a charter flight due to leave at 22:30 (BST) that evening (press releases ECHR 197 (2022) and ECHR 199 (2022)).

Disposition On 14 June 2022 the Court decided “in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the Government of the United Kingdom, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings.” On 3 October 2024 a Committee struck the application out of the list after the applicant said that he wished to withdraw it “as he had been afforded access to the United Kingdom asylum system” (decision notified on 24 October 2024).

On 24 May 2022 he was served with a notice that the authorities were considering treating his asylum claim as inadmissible and relocating him to Rwanda. On 27 May 2022 a doctor at the immigration removal centre issued a report “indicating that the applicant might have been a victim of torture”. On 6 June 2022 he was told that his claim had been deemed inadmissible. The High Court refused interim relief, though it accepted that the question whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country was irrational or based on insufficient enquiry raised serious triable issues; an appeal was dismissed on 13 June, and the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal on 14 June 2022 (press release ECHR 197 (2022)). The Court had regard to the concerns of UNHCR that asylum seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda “will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status”, and to the High Court’s finding. It decided: “In light of the resulting risk of treatment contrary to the applicant’s Convention rights as well as the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space (and is therefore not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights) and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic courts, the Court has decided to grant this interim measure to prevent the applicant’s removal until the domestic courts have had the opportunity to first consider those issues.” Five other people due on the same flight applied to the Court that day. It stayed the removal of R.M. and H.N. until 20 June 2022 to consider their requests in more detail; it rejected two requests “as those applicants had not made use of the suspensive remedies available before the national courts”; and one request was withdrawn after the Home Office withdrew the removal directions (press release ECHR 199 (2022)). The stays for R.M. and H.N., which concerned Iranian and Vietnamese asylum seekers, were not extended and expired (press release ECHR 112 (2023)). The Court of Appeal later recorded that NSK, RM and HTN were granted interim measures and that “The practical consequence was that no removals to Rwanda have yet taken place” ([2023] EWCA Civ 745, paragraph 17). On 24 June 2022 the Government asked the Court to lift the measure. The Court confirmed it on 1 July 2022, because the material the Government presented did not satisfy it that he “could and would be returned to the United Kingdom” if his legal proceedings succeeded. On 19 December 2022 the High Court held the Rwanda arrangement lawful in principle but quashed the decisions in his case, because the Home Secretary had not given adequate reasons for treating his asylum claim as inadmissible and the decision refusing his human rights claim had not considered the evidence he put forward; an order of 16 January 2023 formally quashed them. The Court then informed the parties that the measure “ceased to have effect on 6 February 2023, being three weeks after the individual decisions in N.S.K.’s case were formally quashed” (press release ECHR 112 (2023)). The complaint under Article 3 was communicated to the Government on 5 April 2023, with the question whether he could still claim to be a victim, given that he “cannot be removed to Rwanda without the Home Secretary reconsidering the decisions in his case”. The Court never decided it: on 2 September 2024 he told the Court that he wished to withdraw the application, and it was struck out.

Interim measures Third-country removal Safe third country Offshore processing Article 3 ECHR Judicial review

Caution An interim measure is not a judgment. In the Court’s words, measures under Rule 39 “are decided in connection with proceedings before the Court, without prejudging any subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the case”. The measure, its reasons and its end are known from the Court’s press releases and its communication of the case, which quote the decisions; press releases state that they do not bind the Court. The Court’s documents give two different years of birth for him, so this entry gives none. The domestic courts later held the Rwanda policy unlawful: see the entries for the Court of Appeal (29 June 2023) and the Supreme Court (15 November 2023).

European Court of Human Rights July 8, 2021 Third country: Belarus. Border guards at Terespol turned them away to Belarus on five occasions in July 2017, including on the day the Court indicated an interim measure and the day after (paragraphs 5, 11, 14 and 69). The Court found that returning them there risked “chain‑refoulement” to Syria (paragraphs 63 and 64).

Disposition Unanimously: a violation of Article 3 “on account of the applicants being denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture in Syria”; not necessary to examine the complaint about their treatment during border checks; a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; a violation of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; and Poland “has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention”. The Court continued to indicate that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus “if and when they present themselves at the Polish border crossing” until the judgment became final, and awarded EUR 10,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment became final on 22 November 2021.

The applicants went to the border crossing at Terespol three times between 14 and 18 July 2017 and, they said, asked each time for international protection (paragraph 5). Each time the border guards issued decisions turning them away on the ground that they were “simply trying to emigrate for economic or personal reasons”, based on official notes that the applicants had not signed (paragraph 8). On 20 July 2017, “at 10.08 a.m. the Court (the duty judge) decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, indicating to the Government that the applicants should not be removed to Belarus until 3 August 2017. The Government were informed of the interim measure before the planned time of expulsion. Nevertheless, the applicants were returned to Belarus at 11.25 a.m.” (paragraph 11). The next day they came back with a copy of the Court’s letter and the conscription orders, and were sent back again (paragraphs 13 and 14). The Court held that the applicants “could arguably claim that there was no guarantee that their asylum applications would be seriously examined by the Belarusian authorities and that their return to Syria could violate Article 3 of the Convention”, and that Poland was obliged to allow them “to remain within Polish jurisdiction until such time that their claims had been properly reviewed by a competent domestic authority” (paragraph 64). It rejected the argument that EU law required the refusals: the measure “fell outside the scope of Poland’s strict international legal obligations” (paragraph 67). Sending them back on each of the five occasions “constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 69). Their cases “were part of the same wider policy” found in M.K. and Others v. Poland, and the decisions “constituted a collective expulsion of aliens within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4” (paragraph 83).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR Safe third country

Caution Like M.K. and Others v. Poland (see that entry), the judgment concerns an official border crossing in 2016 and 2017. It does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026. The judgment records that the applicants “currently reside in Belarus” (paragraph 2); it does not record what happened to them after it was delivered.

European Court of Human Rights July 23, 2020 Third country: Belarus. Polish border guards at Terespol and Czeremcha-Połowce refused them entry and returned them to Belarus, on thirty-five, eight and nineteen or more occasions respectively (paragraph 185). The Court held that sending them back there exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement to Chechnya.

Disposition Applications joined and, unanimously, declared admissible. Unanimously: a violation of Article 3 “on account of the applicants being denied access to the asylum procedure and exposed to a risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and torture in Chechnya”; not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 3 about their treatment during border checks; a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; a violation of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; and Poland “has failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 of the Convention”. The Court continued to indicate to Poland “not to remove the applicants in cases nos. 40503/17 and 43643/17 to Belarus” … “until such time as the present judgment becomes final, or until a further decision is made”. By six votes to one, EUR 34,000 for non-pecuniary damage in each of the three applications, with costs; the remainder of the claim dismissed unanimously. The judgment became final on 14 December 2020, when a panel of the Grand Chamber rejected the requests for referral by the applicants and by the government.

The applicants came to the border crossings repeatedly and asked for international protection. The border guards refused them entry and sent them back to Belarus. In June 2017 the Court indicated interim measures that they not be returned to Belarus (paragraph 3). The Court held that “pending an application for international protection, a State cannot deny access to its territory to a person presenting himself or herself at a border checkpoint who alleges that he or she may be subjected to ill-treatment if he or she remains on the territory of the neighbouring State, unless adequate measures are taken to eliminate such a risk” (paragraph 179). The applicants “could arguably claim that there was no guarantee that their asylum applications would be seriously examined by the Belarusian authorities and that their return to Chechnya could violate Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 178), and “the Polish authorities, by failing to allow the applicants to remain on Polish territory pending the examination of their applications, knowingly exposed them to a serious risk of chain refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 185). It found a collective expulsion. The applicants “attempted to cross the border in a legal manner, using an official checkpoint and subjecting themselves to border checks as required by the relevant law” (paragraph 207), and their cases were “an exemplification of a wider State policy of refusing entry to foreigners coming from Belarus, regardless of whether they were clearly economic migrants or whether they expressed a fear of persecution in their countries of origin” (paragraph 208).

Access to asylum Pushbacks Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Interim measures Article 3 ECHR Safe third country

Caution The applicants presented themselves at official border crossings, and the Court relied on that in finding a collective expulsion (paragraph 207). The judgment does not decide the summary returns at the Belarusian border from the summer of 2021, which are before the Grand Chamber in A.R. and Others v. Poland, to be ruled on 24 November 2026. Judge Eicke’s dissent concerned only the assessment of non-pecuniary damage.

UN Committee against Torture May 21, 2013 CAT/C/50/D/430/2010

Disposition “The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention.” The Committee urged Germany “to provide redress to Onsi Abichou, including adequate compensation”, and asked to be told within 90 days of the steps taken (paragraphs 12 and 13). On its request for interim measures, which Germany did not comply with, it concluded that “in the present instance, the State party cannot be said to have failed to meet its obligations under article 22 of the Convention” (paragraph 9.1).

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).

Extradition Convention Against Torture Diplomatic assurances Interim measures

Caution The Committee’s decisions under article 22 of the Convention against Torture are not judgments of a court. It decided after the extradition and assessed the risk as it stood on the day of the extradition. Germany said that the Committee’s request for interim measures reached its competent authorities only after he had been extradited, and the Committee accepted that Germany had not breached article 22 in that respect (paragraph 9.1). The decision does not record what redress, if any, Germany provided, and the Coalition has not read Germany’s reply. The decision was adopted in French; this entry quotes the English text.

European Court of Human Rights March 2, 2010 ECHR 2010

Disposition Unanimously: a violation of Article 3; “it is not necessary to decide whether there have been violations of Article 2 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 13”; and no violation of Article 6. By six votes to one, “there have been violations of Articles 13 and 34 of the Convention”. Unanimously, the findings of violation “constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants”, and EUR 40,000 to the applicants jointly for costs and expenses. The judgment became final on 4 October 2010.

British forces arrested the first applicant on 30 April 2003 and the second on 21 November 2003 and held them in British-run detention facilities in Iraq (paragraph 41). In December 2005 their cases were referred to the Iraqi courts (paragraph 162). The Divisional Court in London found: “we are satisfied that substantial grounds have been shown for believing there to be a real risk of the claimants being condemned to the death penalty and executed, contrary to Protocol No. 13, if they are transferred into the custody of the IHT”, but held that the United Kingdom was bound in international law to hand them over (paragraph 60). On 30 December 2008 the Court indicated that they “should not be removed or transferred from the custody of the United Kingdom until further notice”. The next day the Government informed it that “the applicants had nonetheless been transferred to the custody of the Iraqi authorities earlier that day” (paragraph 4). The Court held that from 1 February 2004, when Protocol No. 13 came into force for the United Kingdom, it should not have entered into any arrangement “which involved it in detaining individuals with a view to transferring them to stand trial on capital charges”, and that “the applicants’ well-founded fear of being executed by the Iraqi authorities during the period May 2006 to July 2009 must have given rise to a significant degree of mental suffering and that to subject them to such suffering constituted inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention” (paragraph 137). Because British forces had arrested and held them, the United Kingdom “was under a paramount obligation to ensure that the arrest and detention did not end in a manner which would breach the applicants’ rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 13” (paragraph 140), and the transfer “in the absence of any such binding assurance” failed to take proper account of those obligations (paragraph 143). On the interim measure: “The failure to comply with the interim measure and the transfer of the applicants out of the United Kingdom’s jurisdiction exposed them to a serious risk of grave and irreparable harm” (paragraph 165). For the same reason “the effectiveness of any appeal to the House of Lords was unjustifiably nullified as a result of the Government’s transfer of the applicants to the Iraqi authorities” (paragraph 166).

Article 3 ECHR Death penalty Transfer of custody Interim measures Article 34 ECHR Effective remedy Diplomatic assurances

Caution The Article 3 violation lies in the fear of execution to which the two men were exposed, which the Court held to be inhuman treatment; it is not a finding that they were tortured in Iraq. When the Court ruled, the Iraqi High Tribunal had cancelled the charges against them on 9 September 2009 “due to insufficient evidence”, the prosecutor had appealed, and the Court of Cassation had sent the case back for reinvestigation and retrial; they remained in custody (paragraphs 88 and 89). The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which supervised the execution of the judgment and has closed the case, records that “Al Saadoon and Mufdhi were released from custody by the Iraqi authorities in 2011”, after the Court of Cassation ratified the Tribunal’s decision to acquit them.