CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 octobre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sFDBEF7EC { width:234.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 60682/08 by Ralston WELLINGTON against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5   October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Lech Garlicki, President,   Nicolas Bratza,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Ledi Bianku,   Vincent Anthony de Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 December 2008, Having regard to the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court on 19 December 2008, Having regard to the decision to give notice of the application to the respondent Government on 11 February 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows:     PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mr Ralston Wellington, a Jamaican national who was born in 1973. He is currently at HMP Long Lartin. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms H. Moynihan of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. A. The circumstances of the case 1.     The applicant was born in 1973 and is currently in detention at HM Prison Long Lartin. 2.     On 16 December 1997, a warrant for the applicant's arrest was issued by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri. On the same date he was formally charged with, inter alia , two counts of murder in the first degree. 3.     The applicant was then arrested in the United Kingdom on 29 January 2003, and remanded in custody the next day. On 10 March 2003, the Prosecuting Attorney for Jackson County swore an affidavit stating that the death penalty would not be sought in respect of the applicant. Under the law of Missouri, for first degree murder, the only other available sentence is one of imprisonment for life without eligibility for probation or parole or release except by act of the Governor. 4.     On 15 October 2003, a District Judge in the United Kingdom committed the applicant to await the decision of the Secretary of State as to whether or not he should be extradited. The applicant applied for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by the High Court on 23 February 2004. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused on 25 November 2004. 5.     By letters dated 26 April and 3 May 2005, the applicant then made representations to the Secretary of State, arguing, inter alia, that his extradition would violate Article 3 of the Convention, on the basis that there was a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in the form of a sentence of life imprisonment without parole. Despite these representations, the Secretary of State ordered the applicant's extradition on 13 June 2006. 6.     The applicant applied to the High Court for permission to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision. The application was dismissed by the High Court on 18 May 2007. The applicant appealed to the House of Lords, which dismissed his appeal on 10 December 2008. Each court found that Article 3 would not be violated if the applicant were extradited to the United States and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. 7.     The application to this Court was lodged on 16 December 2008 and, on 19 December 2008, the President of the Chamber to which this application was allocated decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and to indicate to the Government of the United Kingdom that the applicant should not be extradited until further notice. On 11 February 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the applicant's complaint based on Article 3 of the Convention to the Government. The parties then filed written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case (Rule 59 §1 of the Rules of Court). 8.     On 25 August 2010 the Government informed the Court that they had received a letter from the applicant stating that he wished to return to Missouri to stand trial and to withdraw his application to this Court. A letter dated 30 August 2010 to that effect was also sent by the applicant to his representatives and copied to the Court. 9.     By letter of 30 August 2010 the Court sought confirmation from the applicant's representatives that he wished to withdraw his application. That confirmation was received from the applicant's representative by letter dated 14 September 2010. THE LAW   The Court considers that, given the unequivocal terms of the letter of 14 September 2010, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. In the light of the foregoing, the Court therefore considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it is appropriate to lift the interim measure indicated under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Fatoş Aracı   Lech Garlicki Deputy Registrar   President