CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 juillet 2005

.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. 77 July-August 2005 Al-Shari and Others v. Italy (dec.) - 57/03 Decision 5.7.2005 [Section III] Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 Abolition of the death penalty Extradition to Syria of an applicant who alleged risk of facing the death penalty if returned: inadmissible   The first applicant, a Syrian national, left Syria in 1982 after being charged with belonging to an illegal Islamic group, membership of which exposed him to the death penalty. He took refuge in Iraq. In 2002 he arrived with his wife and children, also Syrian nationals, at Milan airport carrying false identity papers. The family was placed in a holding area in the airport pending deportation. Five days later, they were deported to Syria. The first applicant was arrested and imprisoned and subsequently released. He complained that criminal proceedings had been brought against him for membership of the aforementioned illegal Islamic group and for carrying a false passport. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol N° 6: Where there were substantial and proven grounds for believing that an individual ran a real risk of being subjected to the death penalty in violation of Article 1 of Protocol N° 6 if returned to the country in question, the authorities would be obliged under that provision not to extradite the person to that country. However, anyone claiming to face such a risk, if he or she was extradited to a particular country, had to substantiate such a claim by means of prima facie evidence. In the instant case, it had not been proved that the applicants had told the Italian authorities that they wished to apply for refugee status or, most importantly, that they had expressed fears at any point that the first applicant faced the death sentence if he was deported to Syria. After returning to Syria, the applicants had not provided any factual evidence - relating to the period before or after their return - suggesting that there was a real risk to the life of the first applicant. Regarding the criminal proceedings against the first applicant in Syria, the applicants had given no indication as to the charges he faced or the risks referred to. Consequently, it had not been proved that Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Protocol N° 6: manifestly ill-founded. The applicants complained under Article 3 about the decision to deport them, referring to the risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in Syria and to the conditions in which they had been held in the holding area of Milan airport. They further complained under Article 13 about the procedure for requesting asylum before the Italian authorities and the lack of any opportunity to challenge the decision to deport them: 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