CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 mars 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s560DCDD3 { margin-left:10.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     155   6.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HILAL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case of Hilal v. United Kingdom (no. 45276/99). The Court found, unanimously:   a potential violation Article 3 (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; no violation Article 13 (right to an effective remedy); that no separate issues arose under Articles 6 (right to a fair hearing) and 8 (right to respect for private life).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held, unanimously, that a finding of a violation of Article 3 constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and awarded 12,583 pounds sterling for costs and expenses minus 5,100 French francs.     1.     Principal facts and complaints   Said Mohammed Hilal, a Tanzanian national from Pemba, one of the Zanzibar islands, requested asylum in the United Kingdom on 9 February 1995. Asylum was refused on the grounds that his claim lacked credibility and that his answers given during his asylum interview were factually inconsistent. His appeals were unsuccessful.   Mr Hilal claimed that, before leaving Zanzibar, he was an active member of the Civic United Front (CUF), an opposition party. In August 1994 he alleged he was detained in Madema police station (Zanzibar) for three months because of his involvement with the CUF and tortured; repeatedly locked in a cell full of cold water for days at a time, hung upside down with his feet tied together until he bled through the nose and subjected to electric shocks. He maintained that his expulsion to Tanzania would place him at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment, that he would not receive a fair trial and that he had no effective remedy available. He relied on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.       2. Decision of the Court [2]   Article 3   The Court found: that the applicant and his brother had been detained because they were involved with the CUF; that the applicant was ill-treated during detention by, among other things, being suspended upside down, which caused him severe haemorrhaging through the nose; and that the medical notes and death certificate showed that his brother had died after being released from detention, which was not inconsistent with the applicant’s allegation that his brother had been ill-treated in detention.   Reports on Tanzania from, among others, Amnesty International and the US Department of State, showed there was still active persecution of CUF members, that the Government’s human rights record remained poor, that police committed extra-judicial killings and mistreated suspects, that prison conditions remained harsh and life-threatening and that arbitrary and prolonged detention remained problems.   The Court rejected the United Kingdom Government’s argument that, even assuming that the applicant were at risk in Zanzibar, he could live in mainland Tanzania where the human rights situation was more secure. The Court noted endemic human rights problems on the mainland, police ill-treating and beating detainees, inhuman and degrading prison conditions with inadequate food and medical treatment leading to life-threatening conditions, institutional links between the police in mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar and the possibility of extradition between Tanzania and Zanzibar.   The Court found that the applicant’s deportation to Tanzania would breach Article 3, as he would face a serious risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment.   Article 13   Finding that the substance of the applicant’s complaint was examined by the Court of Appeal, which had the power to afford him the relief he sought, the Court found no violation of Article 13.   (The judgment is only available in English.)   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.