CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juin 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 98 June 2007 Ghosh v. Germany (dec.) - 24017/03 Decision 5.6.2007 [Section V] Article 3 Extradition No immediate risk of extradition of a prisoner who swallowed a knife blade and refused to allow its removal because of a fear of ill-treatment and torture if extradited: inadmissible   Article 34 Victim Lack of victim status of an applicant whose position was to be reviewed by a court of appeal and whose extradition was not, therefore, imminent: inadmissible   The applicant is wanted by the Indian authorities, under an arrest warrant, for criminal conspiracy and fraud in several cases involving sums in excess of two million euros. He was arrested in Germany and placed in custody pending extradition. In a verbal note India requested the applicant's extradition, to which the Court of Appeal agreed. The court subsequently rejected several appeals lodged by the applicant concerning the risk of exposure to ill-treatment in India, as the reality of the risk of ill-treatment and torture had not been demonstrated. The Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider a constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant. The applicant then swallowed a knife blade 10   cm long, which is still lodged in his stomach today. The Court of Appeal rejected a new appeal by the applicant, noting inter alia that the fact that the applicant had swallowed a knife blade and refused to have an operation to remove it only affected his fitness for transport, i.e. the enforceability of his extradition, not its admissibility. The Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider a new constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant. At regular intervals the Court of Appeal subsequently extended the applicant's detention pending extradition. According to a medical report, the blade might injure the applicant if he made certain movements while resisting transport. According to the prison authorities, the applicant's health has deteriorated but he refuses to undergo treatment. Inadmissible under Article   3 – The Court held that an applicant could not claim to be a   “victim” of an expulsion measure when that measure could not be enforced. By swallowing a knife blade which was still in his stomach and which he refused to have removed, the applicant had in effect created an obstacle to his extradition. The Court of Appeal had considered that his unfitness for transport did not affect the admissibility of the extradition but only its enforceability. Were the present obstacle to the extradition to be removed, the Court of Appeal would examine the applicant's health to determine whether he was fit to travel, would re-examine the risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention as a result of the criminal proceedings in India and the conditions of detention there, and would allow the applicant sufficient time to make submissions. As things stood, the applicant's extradition did not appear to be imminent and the applicant could not claim to be a victim of the alleged violations: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes