Relatively Absolute? The Undermining of Article 3 ECHR in Ahmad v UK


Autoria(s): Mavronicola, Natasa; Messineo, Francesco
Data(s)

01/05/2013

Resumo

The recent decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Ahmad v UK dangerously undermines the well-established case law of the Court on counter-terrorism and non-refoulement towards torture, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. Although ostensibly rejecting the ‘relativist’ approach to Article 3 ECHR adopted by the House of Lords in Wellington v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court appeared to accept that what is a breach of Article 3 in a domestic context may not be a breach in an extradition or expulsion context. This statement is difficult to reconcile with the jurisprudence constante of the Court in the last fifteen years, according to which Article 3 ECHR is an absolute right in all its applications, including non-refoulement, regardless of who the potential victim of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment is, what she may have done, or where the treatment at issue would occur.<br/>

Identificador

http://pure.qub.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/relatively-absolute-the-undermining-of-article-3-echr-in-ahmad-v-uk(b672c48a-9579-4d74-b34c-56a1c820600c).html

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12025

Idioma(s)

eng

Direitos

info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess

Fonte

Mavronicola , N & Messineo , F 2013 , ' Relatively Absolute? The Undermining of Article 3 ECHR in Ahmad v UK ' The Modern Law Review , vol 76 , no. 3 , pp. 589-603 . DOI: 10.1111/1468-2230.12025

Palavras-Chave #non-refoulement #torture #Article 3 #ECHR #Ahmad #Abu Hamza #Wellington
Tipo

article