ECtHR – Saadi v. Italy, Application No. 37201/06, 28 February 2008

Rejection by the Court of the arguments of the third-party intervener (the United Kingdom):

- the absolute nature of Article 3 means that there can be no distinction between treatment inflicted by a signatory state and treatment that might be inflicted by another state, and that protection against the latter cannot be weighed against the interests of the community as a whole – i.e., the conduct of the person is irrelevant.

- the threat that the person poses to the community is not related to the degree of risk of ill-treatment that he may be subjected to on return, and so it would be incorrect to require a higher standard of proof when the person is considered to represent a serious danger to the community. Such an approach would also be incompatible with the absolute nature of Article 3.

Article 3 ECHR

The applicant submitted that the enforcement of his deportation to Tunisia would expose him to the risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.

The Court relied on the reports on Tunisia of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the US State Department, whose reliability it does not doubt. They all describe a disturbing situation and report practices which undoubtedly reach the level of severity required by Article 3.

In addition, the existence of the applicant’s sentence in absence in Tunisia was confirmed by a statement from Amnesty International of 19 June 2007.

Morevover, the Italian government asked the Tunisian authorities for diplomatic assurances that the applicant would not be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3, which the Tunisian authorities did not provide.

In these circumstances, the Court found that there were substancial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if he were to be deported to Tunisia. Therefore the decision to deport the applicant to Tunisia would breach Article 3 if it were enforced – the Court accepted the applicant’s submission under Article 3.

Article 6 ECHR

The applicant submitted that his expulsion would expose him to the risk of a flagrant denial of justice in Tunisia contrary to Article 6.

Given that the Court held above that the deportation of the applicant to Tunisia would constitute a violation of Article 3, and that it had no reason to doubt that the Government would comply with this judgment, the Court found that there was no need to decide on the hypothetical question of whether there would also be a violation of Article 6 in the event of the deportation of the applicant to Tunisia.

Therefore the Court did not accept the applicant’s submission under Article 6.

Article 8 ECHR

The applicant submitted that his expulsion would deprive his partner and his son of his presence and assistance and would thus be contrary to Article 8.

Based on the same reasoning as for Article 6, the Court did not accept the applicant’s submission under Article 8.

Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR

The applicant submitted that his expulsion would be neither “necessary in the interests of public order” nor “grounded on reasons of national security”, and so would constitute a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.

Based on the same reasoning as for Articles 6 and 8, the Court did not accept the applicant’s submission under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7.