CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 19 septembre 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                                   PLENARY                          Application No. 28038/95                                    M.A.R                                   against                             the United Kingdom                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                       (adopted on 19 September 1997)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                  Page   INTRODUCTION .............................................       1     PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS .........................       2     PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED ...............................       3                                INTRODUCTION     1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by M.A.R. against the United Kingdom on 15 June 1995. It was registered on 27 July 1995 under file No. 28038/95.   2.     The applicant was represented before the Commission by Jawaid Luqmani, a solicitor practising in London. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms. Susan McCrory, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.   3.     On 16 January 1997, further to an oral hearing, the Commission declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:         "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to       it:         a.   it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake       together with the representatives of the parties an examination       of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the       effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all       necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the       Commission;         b.   it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the       parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement       of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined       in this Convention."   4.     The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 19 September 1997 adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   5.     The following members were present when the Report was adopted:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  E. BUSUTTIL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  J.-C. GEUS                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA            Mrs.   M. HION                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   6.     The applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1954 and he is currently resident in the United Kingdom, having been released from detention in March 1997.   7.     On 5 January 1982 the applicant arrived in London, claimed political asylum and, after an initial refusal, was accorded refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention on 15 March 1982. Subsequently, the applicant was convicted of a number of drugs related offences (on 20 December 1983, 21 February 1985 and 27 February 1985).   8.     Subsequently, UNHCR indicated that, should the applicant re-offend, they would not support any further application for leave to remain. While an application for an extension of leave to remain was pending, the applicant was convicted on 9 June 1988 of being involved in supplying heroin. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and recommended for deportation on completion of his sentence.   9.     On 31 March 1993 the applicant was granted parole but was detained pending a decision to deport him pursuant to section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971 rather than by implementing the court's recommendation. On 23 August 1993 the Home Secretary issued a deportation order. The applicant's appeals against this order were rejected on 13 June 1994 by the Special Adjudicator, on 25 August 1994 by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and on 2 May 1995 by the Court of Appeal. By facsimile dated 25 July 1995 the applicant was given his removal directions to be effected on 27 July 1995.   10.    The applicant was not deported on that date since, following the applicant's request to the Commission pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, the United Kingdom undertook not to deport the applicant pending the Commission's fuller consideration of the matter.   11.    The applicant complained that his deportation to Iran would amount to a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Convention because he ran a real risk of treatment contrary to those Articles if deported in view of his political activities against the regime while he was in Iran, his refugee status in the United Kingdom and his drugs convictions (there being a rigorous anti-drugs campaign conducted in Iran).                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   12.    Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement.   13.    By letter dated 2 April 1997 the Government outlined its proposals for a friendly settlement of the matter (such proposals involving the revocation of the deportation order and the granting of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom) in view of which proposals the applicant had been released from detention on 11 March 1997. By letter dated 30 April 1997 the applicant submitted counter proposals to which the Government responded by letter dated 25 June 1997. The Government's letter of 25 June 1997 outlined the following proposals:         "i. The Deportation Order relating to the Applicant was revoked       on 25 April. The Applicant will be granted indefinite leave to       remain in the United Kingdom and is eligible to apply for a Home       Office travel document.         ii. The Government is not willing to pay compensation to the       Applicant as it considers that his detention was lawful.         iii.The Government is willing to pay the Applicant's reasonable       legal costs arising from this Application."   14.    By letter dated 13 August 1997 the applicant confirmed that a friendly settlement could be reached on the basis of the proposals set out in the letter from the Government dated 25 June 1997.   15.    At its session on 19 September 1997 the Commission found that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1(b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   16.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.           H.C. KRÜGER                          S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                            President      to the Commission                     of the Commission