C was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, C successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. C thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.
Answer
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
C was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, C successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. C thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
C was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of the UK. The UK wanted to deport him to India on the grounds of his alleged criminal behaviour while in India, and the Indian government had indicated he would be welcomed back and treated properly. However, C successfully argued that, while there would be no officially sanctioned action against him, he would be at 'real risk’ of mistreatment by rogue elements within the Punjab Police, and that their official status (even if their action was not 'officially' sanctioned) would mean that the state would not intervene to protect him. C thus extended the principle in Soering to apply where non-state actors represented the possible cause of the article 3 treatment.
Answer
Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413 represents an extension of the principle of extra-territorial effect established in Soering. Chahal was an activist for the cause of Sikh separatism in India who was in the custody of th
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.