CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 septembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s157F70F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sD4EAAB82 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; font-style:italic } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDDFF39D6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s62D26A7C { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; widows:0; orphans:0 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13EFA85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:17.1pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9732F2A { width:183.3pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s10AB3CA3 { font-family:Arial; color:#222222 }       FORMER FIFTH SECTION               CASE OF TRABELSI v. BELGIUM   (Application no. 140/10)               JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 7 October 2014 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.   STRASBOURG   4 September 2014     FINAL   16/02/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Trabelsi v. Belgium, The European Court of Human Rights (Former Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mark Villiger, President,   Ann Power-Forde,   Ganna Yudkivska,   André Potocki,   Paul Lemmens,   Helena Jäderblom,   Aleš Pejchal, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 140/10) against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Tunisian national, Mr Nizar Trabelsi (“the applicant”), on 23 December 2009. 2.     At the time when the application was lodged and when the present judgment was delivered, the applicant was represented by Mr M. Nève, a lawyer practising in Liège. During the proceedings he was also represented by other counsel, particularly, when the judgment was adopted on 1 July 2014, by Mr A. Château, a lawyer practising in Brussels. [1] The Belgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr M. Tysebaert, Senior Adviser, Federal Judicial Department. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that his extradition to the United States of America exposed him to a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. He also contended that the enforcement of the decision to extradite him had infringed his right of individual petition. 4.     On 27 November 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently being held in Rappahannock Prison in Stafford, Virginia (United States). A.     Criminal and asylum proceedings 6.     On 14 September 2001 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant by an investigating judge of the Brussels Regional Court. A search of his home had led to the discovery of false passports, automatic weapons and ammunition, as well as chemical formulae that could be used for making explosives and a detailed plan of the United States Embassy in Paris. 7.     Following a simultaneous search of a Brussels café, where the applicant had been a regular customer, drawing on information provided by another suspect, who had also been arrested, the police discovered 59   litres of acetone and 96 kilograms of sulphur powder.   Under the arrest warrant which was subsequently issued, the applicant was accused of acts of criminal conspiracy, destruction by explosion, possession of combat weapons and belonging to a private militia. 8.     The applicant admitted the offences as charged and was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment by the Brussels Regional Court on 30 September 2003 for attempting to blow up the Kleine-Brogel Belgian army base, forgery, and instigating a criminal conspiracy to attack persons and property. The court’s judgment included the following finding: “[the defendant] attempted to commit one of the most serious crimes since Belgian independence; in spite of the lapse of time since his arrest, he has never shown any remorse, the danger which he poses has remained intact and his case presents no mitigating circumstances.” 9.     In a judgment of 9 June 2004 the Brussels Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s ten-year prison sentence for a range of offences, including: “   - attempting to blow up the Kleine-Brogel Belgian army base, with the added circumstance that the perpetrator must have presumed that there were one or more persons present at the time of the explosion ..., - holding a position of command in a conspiracy formed to perpetrate serious crimes liable to life imprisonment and, in the present case, to carry out a terrorist attack ..., - receiving from a foreign organisation funds intended for conducting, in Belgium, an activity liable to jeopardise national security ..., - being in unlawful possession of a combat weapon ..., - setting up, and assisting or participating in, a private militia or other organisation of private individuals for the purpose of using force ...” 10.     On 26 January 2005 the applicant was sentenced in absentia by a Tunisian military court to ten years’ imprisonment for belonging to a terrorist organisation abroad in peacetime. On 29 June 2009 the Permanent Military Court in Tunis issued a warrant for the applicant to be brought before it, for which an application for enforcement was submitted to the Belgian authorities by diplomatic note of 10 September 2009. 11.     The principal prison sentence imposed on the applicant in Belgium was completed on 13 September 2011. Two subsequent subsidiary prison sentences of six and three months respectively were imposed in 2007 and enforced immediately.   The applicant completed these sentences on 23 June 2012. 12.     On 25 August 2005, meanwhile, the applicant had submitted an asylum application in Belgium, which the Commissioner General for Refugees and Stateless Persons dismissed in a decision of 10 April 2009. This decision refused the applicant refugee status and subsidiary protection on the grounds that he had committed offences contrary to the aims and principles of the United Nations within the meaning of Article 1 f) c of the Geneva Convention. That decision was upheld by the Aliens Appeals Board in a judgment of 18 May 2009. B.     Extradition proceedings 1.     Judicial stage of the validation of the US indictment 13.     By a diplomatic note of 8 April 2008 the US authorities transmitted to the Belgian authorities a request for extradition of the applicant under the Extradition Agreement concluded between the Kingdom of Belgium and the United States of America on 27 April 1987. The reasons for the request were the indictment issued by the District Court of the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) against the applicant on 16   November   2007, comprising the following charges: “A. Conspiracy to kill United States nationals outside of the United States, in violation of the following provisions: 18 U.S.C. § 2332 (b) (2) and 1111   (a) B. Conspiracy and attempt to use of weapons of mass destruction, in violation of the following provisions: 18 U.S.C. §   2332a and 2 C. Conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation, in violation of the following provisions: 18   U.S.C. §   2339B D. Providing material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation, in violation of the following provisions: 18 U.S.C. § 2339B and 2.” 14.     The extradition request continued as follows: “A warrant for the arrest of Mr Nizar Trabelsi was issued on 16 November 2007 by order of ... judge .... The underlying facts of the charges indicate that in mid-2000 or earlier, while in Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, and in Afghanistan, Nizar TRABELSI knowingly entered into an agreement with al Qaeda associates, including Osama bin Laden, to provide material support and resources, to unlawfully kill United States nationals in targeted facilities in Western Europe, and to use a large-scale explosive device (a weapon of mass destruction) to destroy property in Western Europe used by the United States and/or a department or agency of the United States.” 15.     According to the documents in support of the extradition request, notably the applicable extracts from criminal law (Title 18 of the United States Code, U.S.C.) transmitted by the US authorities, these offences carried the following penalties: “A. 18 U.S.C. § 2332 (b) (2) and 1111 (a): a maximum term of life imprisonment, or a combined fine and prison sentence. B. 18 U.S.C. § 2332a and 2: a maximum term of life imprisonment. C. 18 U.S.C. § 2339B: a fine or a maximum term of 15 years imprisonment, or a combination of both. D. 18 U.S.C. § 2339B and 2: a fine or a maximum term of 15 years imprisonment, or a combination of both.” 16.     On 4 June 2008 the Federal Attorney transmitted to the chambre du conseil of the Nivelles Regional Court a request for enforcement of the arrest warrant issued on 16   November 2007 against the applicant. In his request the Federal Attorney pointed out that the maximum sentences for the offences underlying the request for extradition were fifteen and ten years respectively. 17.     By a diplomatic note of 12 November 2008 the US authorities made the following assurances concerning the applicant   to the Belgian authorities: “The Government of the United States assures the Government of Belgium that, pursuant to his extradition, Nizar Trabelsi will not be prosecuted before a military commission, as enabled by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The Government of the United States further assures the Government of Belgium that upon extradition, Trabelsi will not be detained or incarcerated in any facility other than a civilian facility in the United States.” 18.     By an order of 19 November 2008, the chambre du conseil of the Nivelles Regional Court acceded to the Federal Attorney’s request and declared the arrest warrant issued by the US District Court enforceable. However, the order added the following stipulation: “It emerges from the examination of the documents enclosed with the arrest warrant issued for the purposes of extradition ... that the ‘overt acts’ listed by the US authorities in support of the first charge include several which correspond very precisely to the acts committed in Belgian territory which justify the [applicant’s] conviction in Belgium.   ... Therefore, by virtue of the ne bis in idem principle, the arrest warrant issued for the purposes of extradition on 16 November 2007 by the competent judicial authority of the United States of America cannot be declared enforceable in respect of ‘overt acts’ nos.   23, 24, 25, 26 set out in paragraph 10 of the first charge, which are deemed repeated in support of the other charges.” 19.     Having examined an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal delivered a judgment on 19 February 2009 upholding the aforementioned order and declared the warrant enforceable. Having noted that the extradition concerned acts (committed outside Belgium) other than those for which the applicant had been prosecuted and convicted in Belgium, the Court of Appeal argued that: “There are no serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition was submitted for the purposes of prosecuting or punishing Trabelsi Nizar for considerations of race, religion, nationality or political opinion or that this individual’s situation is liable to be worsened for any of these reasons. ... Nor is there any serious reason to believe that if Trabelsi Nizar were to be extradited he would be subjected to a flagrant denial of justice, acts of torture or inhuman or degrading   treatment; there is no reason to suppose that the United States of America will not meticulously comply with all the provisions, including Articles 7.2 and 7.3, of the Extradition Agreement concluded with Belgium, and every reason to believe that Trabelsi Nizar will be detained in a civilian facility and tried by the ordinary courts, in accordance with conventional procedure. ...” 20.     On 24 April 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment of the Court of Appeal. He relied on the risk of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention and the risk of a flagrant denial of justice. He contended that the Court of Appeal had not assessed the consequences of his extradition to the United States in the light of the general situation in that country or his own specific circumstances, and argued that the Court of Appeal should have adopted the same line of reasoning as the Court in the case of Saadi v. Italy [GC] (no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008). He also complained that the Court of Appeal had not addressed the potential problem under Article   3 of sentencing a person to an irreducible life sentence. Lastly, he complained of a violation of the ne bis in idem principle. 21.     By a judgment of 24 June 2009 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It ruled that the Court of Appeal had provided adequate reasons and legal justification for its decision, considering   “   - that the requesting State is currently conducting a thorough review of its anti-terrorist policy, stepping up its action against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, and is on the verge of suspending the special courts and abolishing the unlimited detention without trial of persons captured in the context of international conflict; - that under the terms of the formal guarantees provided in support of the extradition request, the appellant will be tried by an ordinary civilian court in accordance with the normal procedure in force in the requesting State, enjoying all the rights and remedies available under the national judicial system; - that the appellant is not liable to a life sentence for the offences for which his extradition has been requested and that the penalties which they carry can be commuted into other penalties with possibilities for release on parole; - that because the evidence relied upon by the appellant lacks any specific aspect affecting his own personal situation, which would have made the risks he alleges more credible, it does not substantiate any serious concern that he could be exposed to a flagrant denial of justice or acts of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. ...” 22.     In a letter of 11 November 2009 sent to the Belgian authorities at the behest of the Federal Attorney responsible for the extradition request, the US Department of Justice supplied the following additional information: “The statutory maximum sentence for a conviction of each of the first two of these offenses is life imprisonment and the statutory maximum sentence for the latter two   offenses is 15 years. In addition, the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which are the voluntary guidelines that judges may choose to follow in sentencing defendants, call for a life sentence for each of the first two of these offenses. A life sentence is not mandatory and the court has the discretion to issue a sentence less than life. In issuing a sentence, the court may consider the gravity of the offense and whether any lives were lost or property was damaged. In this instance, Trabelsi did not succeed in carrying out his plans to kill United States nationals and to use weapons of mass destruction. Thus, the court in issuing a sentence, in its discretion, may consider that Trabelsi was not successful in carrying out his plans. The court also may consider any mitigating factors, such as whether the defendant acknowledges responsibility for his actions. If the court, in its discretion, sentences Trabelsi to a punishment of less than life, i.e. a term of years, Trabelsi’s sentence could be reduced by up to 15% for good behaviour while incarcerated. This type of sentence reduction is only possible, however, if the original sentence is to a term of years, however long, rather than a life sentence. Therefore, if Trabelsi were sentenced to a term of 20, 30, or even 50   years, then he could be eligible for a sentence reduction of up to 15% of his original sentence based on his good behaviour while incarcerated. If, however, Trabelsi is sentenced to life, he would not be eligible for any reduction in his sentence. Finally, Trabelsi can apply for a Presidential pardon or sentence commutation. (A   pardon would eliminate the conviction; a commutation would be an adjustment to the sentence.) However, this is only a theoretical possibility in Trabelsi’s case. We are not aware of any terrorism defendant ever having successfully applied for a Presidential pardon or sentence commutation.” 2.     Judicial and administrative phase of the response to the extradition request a)     Opinion of the Indictments Division 23.     Once the US indictment was declared operative, the proceedings relating to the response to the extradition request were commenced. 24.     On 4 February 2010 the Federal Attorney forwarded his written opinion to the Brussels Court of Appeal inviting it, in the light of the Court’s case-law, particularly Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC] (no. 21906/04, ECHR 2008), to issue a positive opinion on the applicant’s extradition. He pointed out that in the case of the first two charges, the applicant was liable to a life sentence, while in the case of the other two charges he was liable to a fifteen-year prison sentence. 25.     In a letter of 29 March 2010 to the Federal Department of Justice the applicant took note of the fact that at the hearing on 24 March 2010 the Federal Attorney had acknowledged a mistake in his observations in the enforcement request proceedings concerning the sentence to which the applicant might be liable following his extradition to the United States (see paragraph 16 above). 26.     On 10 June 2010 the Indictments Division of the Court of Appeal issued a favourable opinion on the applicant’s extradition, specifying a number of conditions: “ - extradition may only be granted: i. on condition that the death penalty is not imposed on N.   Trabelsi or, if the United States cannot guarantee this condition, on condition that the death penalty is not enforced; ii. on condition that any life sentence is accompanied by the possibility of commutation of sentence, even if the conviction is based on terrorist acts; - in the event of a request for N. Trabelsi’s re-extradition to a third country, such as Tunisia, the United States must request the agreement of Belgium should Tunisia send the US Government any future request for extradition after N. Trabelsi has been handed over to them. If the US fails to accept these conditions the extradition must be refused.” b)     Ministerial decree granting extradition 27.     By a diplomatic note of 10 August 2010 the US authorities confirmed that the applicant was not liable to the death penalty and assured the Belgian authorities that he would not be extradited to any third country without the agreement of the Belgian Government. The US authorities reiterated that the maximum life prison sentence was not mandatory and that even if all the constituent elements of the criminal offences in question were secured and proved, the court had the discretion to impose a lighter sentence. The note specified that US legislation provided for several means of reducing life sentences: “Regarding the question of commutation of a life sentence, the United States wishes to make it clear, in the first instance, that if Trabelsi were convicted, a life sentence is not mandatory; the court has the discretion to impose a sentence less than life. Also, a defendant has a statutory right to appeal the conviction and sentence, including a life sentence, both directly, and collaterally through a habeas corpus petition. In addition, there are certain statutory bases for reduction of an already-imposed sentence, including where the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of a third party (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) and Title 18 United States Code, Section 3582(c)(1)(B)), or for compelling humanitarian reasons such as the terminal illness of the prisoner (Title 18, United States Code, Section 3582(c)(lXA)(i)). In addition to these measures, the defendant may request that his sentence be reduced as an exercise of executive clemency by the President of the United States. The President’s power under Article H, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, “to grant reprieves and pardons” includes the authority to commute (reduce) a sentence of imprisonment, including a life sentence. There are established regulations and procedures governing the application process for executive clemency, and the Office of the Pardon Attorney has been established in the Department of Justice to review all applications for executive clemency and prepare recommendations for the President on those applications. The U.S. Constitution gives the President absolute discretion to grant executive clemency to a defendant. We note that while such discretion has been exercised sparingly, such relief has, on occasion, been granted for serious offenses implicating national security. For example, in 1999, President Clinton commuted the sentences of 13 members of the FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist organization responsible for numerous bombings in the 1970s and early 1980s, who had been convicted of conspiracy to commit armed robbery, bomb making, sedition and other offenses.” 28.     On 23 November 2011 the Minister for Justice adopted a ministerial decree granting the applicant’s extradition to the US Government. Having noted that the applicant would in no case be liable to the death penalty, the decree examined each of the other guarantees provided. 29.     On the matter of possible life imprisonment, the ministerial decree read as follows: “Under US Federal criminal law the maximum penalty laid down in respect of the charges – the offences under A and B – precludes early release and release on parole. Life sentences as provided for in these two provisions of the US Criminal Code are therefore, from the legal and factual angles, in principle served for the whole of the person’s life. ... In diplomatic note no. 21 of 10 August 2010 from the United States Embassy, the US authorities provided a guarantee that (even) if an irreducible life sentence were handed down it would be possible to obtain a pardon from the US President. This right is set out in Article 2, II of the US Constitution. Furthermore, Presidential pardons have in fact been granted on several occasions in the past, including the recent past, to persons sentenced by the US courts, particularly at the Federal level. ... Even if we view it in its historical context, the FALN case shows that in cases likely to fall under the current legislation on terrorism in force since 11 September 2001, which cases must objectively be seen as much more serious than those of which the person sought is suspected and which are therefore liable to lead to severer penalties, Presidential pardons can indeed be granted. Even though some individuals have since 2001 been given irreducible life sentences ... for terrorism or acts linked to terrorism, such cases cannot be compared to the Trabelsi case in terms of their content. All those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment in the US without early release or release on parole were charged, prosecuted and finally convicted for active involvement in terrorist attacks which had caused deaths and/or injuries and considerable material damage, for example the attacks on the US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salaam (Tanzania) on 7   August 1998. ... Those offences were manifestly incomparable in extent and nature with those attributed to the person whose extradition has been requested. In the aforementioned cases persons, sometimes enormous numbers of people, in addition to US nationals, suffered substantial physical and material damage. The person sought in the present case, however, is being prosecuted for having planned and prepared a terrorist attack which was never carried out. He did not succeed, in cooperation with others, in causing human injuries or even material damage. It is therefore manifestly plausible that the offences as charged are not such that the maximum applicable sentence laid down in the US Criminal Code, that is to say an irreducible life sentence, could be called for or imposed. A recent survey by the Human Rights First NGO shows that of the 214 persons prosecuted since 11 September 2001 for terrorist offences linked to al-Qaeda or other Islamist groups or for offences connected with such terrorist offences, 195 have been convicted. Each case involved prosecutions or convictions instigated by Federal attorneys and courts. 151 of the convicted persons were sentenced to imprisonment, while twenty were released on licence or given prison terms corresponding to the period of custody already served. The average length of prison sentences handed down was 8.4   years. Only 11 of those convicted were sentenced to life imprisonment. The report also points out that the proceedings complied with the right to a fair trial (“Human Rights First, In pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts   – 2009 Update and Recent Developments”, 2009, 68 pp.). The statistics show that, objectively, the risk of being sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in cases of prosecution for terrorist offences is considerably lower than is commonly thought.” 30.     In connection with the applicant’s possible re-extradition to Tunisia, the ministerial decree continued as follows: “By diplomatic note no. 21 of 10 August 2010 from the US Embassy the US authorities clearly indicated that if the Tunisian authorities applied to the United States for extradition, it would be turned down. ... Given the decision to refuse extradition to the Tunisian Republic, in view of the fact that re-extradition necessitates the agreement of the State which authorised the initial extradition, no re-extradition to the Tunisian Republic is possible. Since the Belgian authority refused extradition to the Tunisian Republic, if Tunisia were to transmit to the US a request for extradition in the future the US would also refuse it, and no extradition by the United States to the Tunisian Republic is possible.” 31.     Lastly, the ministerial decision analysed the application of the ne bis in idem principle as follows: “Under the Agreement (the Extradition Agreement of 27 April 1987), Belgium and the United States of America ... have mutually undertaken to refuse extradition if the person sought has been acquitted in the requested State or has been convicted in the same State for the same offence as that for which extradition is being requested. Ratification ... incorporated this agreement into the Belgian and US legal systems. In other words it is not the acts but the legal classification of the acts, namely the offences, which must be identical. ... The facts forming the basis of the offences in question correspond to ‘overt acts’ which individually or together function as factual elements supporting the charges. The double jeopardy principle does not exclude the possibility of using or not using these elements. In the present case the offences for which the person sought was finally convicted by the Brussels Court of Appeal on 9 June 2004 do not correspond to the offences listed in charges A to D in the arrest warrant forming the basis for the US extradition request. The constituent elements of the respective US and Belgian offences, their scope and the place(s) and time(s) of their commission do not match up. ... Under US Federal criminal law an ‘overt act’ is a (factual) element, an act, a behaviour or a transaction which in itself may not necessarily be classified as an offence... An ‘overt act’ is merely a piece of supporting evidence which in itself or in conjunction with other overt acts may help constitute the offence or offences for which the person is being prosecuted, that is to say conspiracy, for instance to kill US nationals (see charge A). ... Although each of ‘overt acts’ nos. 24, 25 and 26 could be classified as an offence, these acts nonetheless do not constitute offences for which the extradition has been requested.” 32.     Article 2 of the decree stated that “extradition will take place after the person sought has complied with the requirements of the Belgian courts ”. 33.     On the same day, under another ministerial decree, the Minister for Justice refused the Tunisian authorities’ request for the applicant’s extradition (see paragraph 10 above). c)     Application for judicial review before the Conseil d’Etat 34.     On 6 February 2012, relying on violations of Article 3 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7, the applicant lodged an application with the Conseil d’Etat for judicial review of the ministerial decree granting his extradition to the United States of America. 35.     At the Conseil d’Etat hearing on 19 September 2013 the applicant relied on the Court’s judgment in Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom [GC] (nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9 July 2013). He deduced from this judgment that the Court had now adopted a position requiring preventive review of whether a life prison sentence was reducible or not before the prisoner began his sentence, and therefore that the distinction drawn in the Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom judgment, (nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09, 10   April   2012) depending on whether the person subject to extradition had been convicted or not was no longer relevant. 36.     In a judgment of 23 September 2013 the Conseil d’Etat dismissed the application for judicial review. As to the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and the risk of an irreducible life sentence, the Conseil d’Etat reasoned as follows: “Even supposing that the applicant is sentenced by the US courts to life imprisonment, it should be noted that in its Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom judgment of 9 July 2013 [the Court] ruled that: ‘a life sentence does not become irreducible by the mere fact that in practice it may be served in full’, that ‘no issue arises under Article 3 if a life sentence is de jure and de facto reducible ...’ and that ‘where national law affords the possibility of review of a life sentence with a view to its commutation, remission, termination or the conditional release of the prisoner, this will be sufficient to satisfy Article 3’. In the present case, as in that of Babar Ahmad and Others v. United Kingdom which led to [the Court’s judgment] of 10 April 2012, the applicant has not been sentenced by a US court to life imprisonment, and has still less begun serving such a sentence. As in the aforementioned case, therefore, the applicant does not show that in the event of a life sentence, the question will arise whether there is any legitimate penological justification for continuing his imprisonment. Moreover, in his most recent submissions the applicant acknowledges that a possible life sentence imposed on him would be reducible de jure . US law allows him either to request a review or apply for a Presidential pardon or commutation of sentence, and the applicant does not contend that this power of executive clemency or sentence commutation is accompanied by restrictions comparable to those in issue in the [Court’s] aforementioned judgment of 9 July 2013. Although the applicant challenges the assertion that such a sentence is reducible de facto , the explanations provided to the opposing party by the US authorities do show that the US President has already used his power to commute sentences. Therefore, the legal remedy available to the applicant in the event of a life prison sentence is not excluded in practice. Furthermore, the applicant’s contention that since the 11   September 2001 terrorist attack it has been inconceivable for the US President to grant a pardon to or commute the sentence of a person convicted of terrorism has not been substantiated by any reliable information, nor can it be in view of the relatively short period of time, as compared with a life sentence, which has elapsed since the said attack and any criminal sentences subsequently imposed. As in Babar Ahmad ..., therefore, it has not been established that the US authorities would, when appropriate, refuse to implement the available sentence-reducing mechanisms where there was no legitimate penological justification for continuing the applicant’s imprisonment. Any possible life sentence imposed on the applicant would therefore also be reducible de facto . Consequently, it is unnecessary to determine whether the opposing party was wrong to consider that the applicant would not necessarily be sentenced to life imprisonment, because, even if he were sentenced to such a prison term, this penalty would not constitute a breach of Article 3 [of the Convention]”. 37.     As to the complaint under A rticle 5 of the Extradition Agreement between the Kingdom of Belgium and the United States of America, Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention and Article 14 § 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Conseil d’Etat held that: “The US authorities request the applicant’s extradition on four charges, namely: 1) Conspiracy to kill United States nationals outside of the United States; 2) Conspiracy and attempt to use of weapons of mass destruction; 3) Conspiracy to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation; 4) Providing material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation, in violation of the following provisions. Again according to the US authorities, in order to commit these offences as charged the applicant and four accomplices carried out a series of ‘overt acts’, including those for which extradition is being granted to the US authorities presented as follows: [a list of 28 charges follows]. In Belgium the charges (‘in the Brussels judicial district and, on related charges, elsewhere in the Kingdom’) against the applicant are as follows: [a list of 13 charges follows]. Comparing all the ‘overt acts’ for which extradition has been granted to the US authorities with all the Belgian charges valid ‘in the Brussels judicial district and ... elsewhere in the Kingdom’, it will be noted that the former have no territorial link with the Kingdom of Belgium, constituting a set of acts which serve as the constituent elements of the four charges presented by the US authorities. It emerges from the case file that the applicant is wanted by the US authorities for a number of offences in respect of which he has not been ‘found guilty, convicted or acquitted in the requested State’ and that the ‘overt acts’ constitute so many elements to be used by the US judicial authorities to establish whether the applicant is guilty or innocent of the four charges brought against him.” C.     Indication of an interim measure and following stages in the proceedings before the Court 38.     On 6   December 2011, the date of notification of the ministerial decrees relating to the requests for extradition (see paragraphs 28 and 33), the applicant lodged a request with the Court for the indication of an interim measure pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court with a view to suspending his extradition. 39.     On the same day the Court acceded to the applicant’s request and decided to indicate to the Government, in the interests of the parties and of the proper conduct of proceedings before it, that it should not extradite the applicant to the United States of America. 40.     On 20 December 2011, arguing that the interim measure had been indicated prematurely because the applicant had not yet been placed in custody pending extradition and that such a measure would create a situation detrimental to the proper administration of justice, the Belgian Government requested that the measure be lifted. 41.     On 11 January 2012, the Court, having re-examined the application in the light of the information supplied by the parties, decided, on the basis of the said information, to refuse to lift the interim measure. 42.     On 21 May 2012 the Government submitted a second request for the lifting of the interim measure. 43.     In reply, the Court pointed out, in a letter of 25 May 2012, that the request to lift the measure and the application would be re-examined once the judgment delivered on 10 April 2012 by the Court in Babar Ahmad and Others v.   United Kingdom , cited above, had become final. 44.   In a letter of 25 June 2012 the Court informed the parties that the examination of the request to lift the interim measure had been postponed indefinitely in view of the request for referral to the Grand Chamber of the cases Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom (no. 66069/09) and Harkins and Edwards v. United Kingdom (nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07). 45.     On 3 August 2012 the Court informed the parties that it had been decided to refer the aforementioned Vinter case to the Grand Chamber and that the question of the request to lift the interim measure would be re-examined when a decision had been taken on the request for referral of the aforementioned case of Babar Ahmad and Others to the Grand Chamber. 46.     The application was communicated to the respondent Government on 27   November 2012. 47.     In their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application the Government requested, for the third time, the immediate lifting of the interim measure. 48.     In a letter of 7 January 2013 the Court replied that the Government would be informed in due course of the decision taken by the Court on the interim measure. 49.     On 15 January 2013 it was decided to maintain the interim measure for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. 50.     In a letter of 18 June 2013 in reply to a fourth request from the Government to lift the interim measure, the Court stated that the interim measure had been maintained and would be applied until the end of the proceedings before it. 51.     On 10 July 2013 the Court informed the parties that examination of the case had been adjourned in view of the imminent delivery of the judgment of the Conseil d’Etat and of the Grand Chamber judgment in Vinter and Others [GC] (nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10, 9 July 2013). 52.     In reply to a question from the Government on the deadline for dealing with the case, the Court informed them on 25   September 2013 that the examination of the case would begin at the end of October or the beginning of November. 53.     On 18 October 2013 the Court informed the parties that the chamber constituted to examine the case was intending to relinquish the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 30 of the Convention. 54.     By letter of 31 October 2013 the applicant expressed his agreement to such relinquishment. The Government, on the other hand, indicated, by letter of 8 November 2013, that they opposed relinquishment. D.     Detention pending extradition 55.     On 24 June 2012, having served the sentences imposed on him (see paragraph 11 above), the applicant was taken into custody pending extradition in pursuance of section 3 of the Extradition Act of 15 March 1874. 56.   On 7 June 2012 the applicant lodged a first application for release with the Nivelles Regional Court. By an order of 12   June   2012 the chambre du conseil dismissed the application. The order was upheld by the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal on 28 June 2012. 57.     Subsequently, having meanwhile been transferred first to Bruges Prison and then to Hasselt Prison, the applicant lodged a second application for release on 13 August 2012 with the Hasselt Regional Court. On 24 August 2012 the chambre du conseil allowed his application. On appeal from the public prosecutor, by judgment of 6   September   2012, the Indictments Division of Antwerp Court of Appeal set aside this decision and dismissed the application. 58.     On 3 December 2012 the applicant lodged a third application for release. By an order of 14 December 2012 the chambre du conseil of the Hasselt Regional Court declared the application unfounded. The applicant appealed to the Indictments Division of Antwerp Court of Appeal, which upheld the aforementioned decision by judgment of 10 January 2013. 59.     In January 2013, having meanwhile been transferred to Mons Prison, the applicant lodged a fourth application for release, which was declared unfounded by the chambre du conseil of the Mons Regional Court on 4 February 2013, and then by the Indictments Division of the Mons Court of Appeal on 21 February 2013. 60.     On 23 August 2013, having meanwhile been transferred to Ittre Prison, the applicant lodged a fifth application for release. This application was dismissed by the chambre du conseil of Nivelles Regional Court on 28 August 2013 and then by the Indictments Division of the Brussels Court of Appeal on 12 September 2013. 61.     Meanwhile, on 5 September 2013, the applicant had left Ittre Prison for Bruges Prison, having obtained a date for his wedding to a Belgian national with whom he had had two children. E.     The applicant’s extradition 62.     On 3 October 2013 the applicant was informed that he was being transferred from Bruges Prison to Ittre Prison. In fact he was being taken to Melsbroek military airport, where Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents were waiting for him. At 11.30 a.m. he was extradited to the United States. 63.     The Minister for Justice issued a public statement announcing the applicant’s departure at 1.30 p.m. 64.     At 3 p.m. the applicant’s lawyer made a highly urgent ex parte application to the President of Brussels Regional Court. The decision, which was given at 6.30 p.m., stated that the Belgian State was required to comply with the interim measure indicated by the Court, and ordered “prohibition or suspension of the applicant’s extradition, as far as this might be possible”, on pain of a fine of EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros). The Court has not been informed of any appeal against this order. F.     The applicant’s detention in the United States 65.     In the United States the applicant was immediately placed in custody. On 7 October 2013, assisted by an officially appointed lawyer, he was brought before the District Court of the District of Columbia to hear the charges against him. 66.     The applicant is currently being held in the Rappahannock regional prison in Stafford (Virginia). On 1 November 2013 a letter from the prison administration to the Belgian authorities stated that the applicant was subject to the same conditions of detention as all other prisoners. 67.     According to an email sent on 6 November 2013 by the applicant’s US lawyer to his representative before the Court, the applicant was allowed to have postal contact with the outside world, but all correspondence would be translated and read in advance by the US Government. He was also allowed to have telephone contact with some members of his family provided that an interpreter was available. Close relatives could visit him subject to obtaining a US entry visa. 68.     The applicant was visited by his lawyer, who, in an email sent to a member of his family on 7 December 2013, said that he had been placed in an isolated cell. She expressed concern about his mental state. II.   RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Belgian legislation on extradition 69.     Under Belgian law, extradition proceedings are governed by the Extradition Act of 15   March 1874, the provisions of which, as far as they apply to the present case, may be summarised as follows. 70.     Under section 1, extradition is only possible between Belgium and foreign States under a treaty concluded on a mutual basis. 71.     The Belgian Act makes extradition subject to several conditions regarding the offence for which extradition is being requested: Section 2 “... where the crime or offence giving rise to the application for extradition has been committed outside the territory of the requesting party, the Government may only hand over the prosecuted or convicted foreigner, on a reciprocal basis, if Belgian legislation authorises the prosecution of the same offences committed outside the Belgian Kingdom.” Section 2bis “Extradition may not be granted if there are serious reasons to believe that the application was submitted for the purpose of persecuting or punishing a person on considerations of race, religion, nationality or political opinions, or if the situation of such person is liable to be worsened for any one of those reasons. Nor can extradition be granted if there are serious risks that if the person were e