CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 21 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA8C2B9B0 { width:20.37pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   364 21.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING A. AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 21 May 2008 at 9 a.m. , in the case of A. and Others v. the United Kingdom (application no. 3455/05).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicants   The applicants are 11   individuals: six are of Algerian nationality; four are, respectively, of French, Jordanian, Moroccan and Tunisian nationality; and, one, born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, is stateless.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the applicants’ complaint that they were detained in high security conditions under a statutory scheme which permitted the indefinite detention of non-nationals certified by the Secretary of State as suspected of involvement in terrorism.   All the applicants were allegedly involved in extreme Islamist terrorist groups with links to Al Qa’eda, such as the GSPC (or Salafist Group for Call and Combat) formed in Algeria in 1998, the Tunisia Fighting Group and a group of Algerian extremists centred around Abu Doha, known for his senior role in training camps in Afghanistan and for his connection with the Frankfurt cell accused of plotting to bomb the Strasbourg Christmas market in December 1995. The applicants were notably suspected of supporting those terrorist groups by fundraising for them through credit card fraud, supplying false documents, purchasing telecommunications equipment and helping young Muslims from the United Kingdom to travel to Afghanistan to train for jihad. The Jordanian applicant also had a prior conviction in Jordan for involvement in terrorist attacks and was alleged to be the spiritual advisor to certain people associated with Al   Qa’eda. In speeches at a London mosque, he had been reported as having given his blessing to the killing of Jews and Americans, wherever they were.   Following the attacks of 11   September 2001 on the United States of America, the British Government considered that the United Kingdom was a particular target for future attacks. It believed that the threat came principally from a number of foreign nationals present in the United Kingdom, who were providing a support network for Islamist terrorist operations linked to Al’Qaeda, but who could not be deported because there was a risk that each would be ill-treated in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in his country of origin. As a result, on 11   November 2001 the British Secretary of State issued a notice of derogation under Article   15 (derogation in time of emergency) of the Convention to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe setting out the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act   2001 (“the 2001 Act”) and relating to the detention of suspected terrorists.   At various times between December 2001 and October 2003, each applicant was certified under Section   21 of the 2001   Act as an international terrorist and was initially detained at Belmarsh Prison in London. The Moroccan and French applicants were released as they elected to leave the United Kingdom in December 2001 and March 2002, respectively. Three of the applicants, following a deterioration in their mental health (including a suicide attempt), were transferred to Broadmoor Secure Mental Hospital. Another applicant was released on bail in April 2004, under conditions equal to house arrest, because of serious concerns over his mental health.   The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture, having visited the detainees in February 2002 and March 2004, published a report in which it was critical of the applicants’ conditions of detention in Belmarsh Prison and Broadmoor Hospital and reported allegations of ill-treatment by staff. It noted, in particular, that the applicants were in a poor mental state and that the indefinite nature of their detention exacerbated their disorders. That report was corroborated by a Joint Psychiatric Report drawn up at the request of the applicants’ representatives.   The British Government categorically rejected the suggestion that the applicants were treated in an inhuman or degrading manner at any point during their detention.   In the meantime, the applicants brought proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (“SIAC”) in which they challenged the legality of the November 2001 derogation. On 30   July 2002 SIAC concluded that it was satisfied that Al’Qaeda had created a public emergency threatening the life of the nation, but it also found that, since the detention regime applied only to foreign nationals and permitted UK nationals suspected of terrorism to go free, it was discriminatory and in breach of the European Convention.   The Court of Appeal found that the November 2001 derogation was compatible with the Convention.   In a judgment of 16   December 2004, the House of Lords found by a majority that, although there was an emergency threatening the life of the nation, the detention scheme was a disproportionate response to the threat to national security and permitted discriminatory detention of suspected international terrorists. The House of Lords therefore made a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act and quashed the derogation order.   However the eight applicants still in prison or at Broadmoor remained detained until the 2001 Act was repealed by Parliament in March 2005. As soon as they were released, they were immediately made subject to control orders, a regime which came into effect on 11   March and which imposes various restrictions on those reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorism, regardless of nationality. More recently, the applicants were placed in immigration custody pending removal to Algeria and Jordan.   Complaints   The applicants complain about the psychiatric harm they suffered as result of their detention under the 2001   Act.   They also allege that that detention was unlawful and, in particular, that the relevant legislation only applies to non-UK nationals. Furthermore, although their detention was declared to be in breach of domestic law, they are unable to bring any proceedings in the United Kingdom to claim compensation or bring about their release. Lastly, the applicants complain that they had only limited knowledge of the case against them and a limited possibility to challenge it. The applicants rely on Articles   3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and   14 (prohibition of discrimination).   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 January 2005. The Chamber to which the case was assigned decided to relinquish jurisdiction to the Grand Chamber [1] on 11 September 2007.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nicolas Bratza (British), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese) Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Lech Garlicki (Polish), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), Ledi Bianku (Albanian), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgian), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldovan), judges , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), substitute judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Derek Walton , Agent ,   Philip Sales , Cecilia Ivimy , Counsel ,   Steven Braviner-Roman , Kate Chalmers , Edward Adams , James Adutt , Lesley Smith , Advisers;   Applicants :   Ben Emmerson , Raza Husain , Danny Friedman , Counsel ,   Gareth Pierce , Daniel Guedalla , Advisers .     ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date. [2]   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.