Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:34:28.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

H.L.R. v. France. 1997 Reports of Judgements and Decisions 745 / D. v. United Kingdom. 1997 Reports of Judgements and Decision 777

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Juliane Kokott  and
Heike Berger-Kerkhoff
Juliane Kokott
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
Heike Berger-Kerkhoff
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 92 , Issue 3 , July 1998 , pp. 524 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Article 3 reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 UNTS 221.

2 The applicant asked the Court not to reveal his identity.

3 Quoted in 1997 Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 745, para. 17 [hereinafter First Judgment].

4 Dec. 10, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85. Article 1 provides, in relevant part: “For the purpose of this Convention, the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person . . . .”

5 Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) para. 88 (1989); Chahal v. United Kingdom, 1996 Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1831, 23 Eur. Hum. Rts. Rep. 413 (1997), para. 79. 6 See First Judgment, para. 27.

7 Chahal, supra note 5, summarized in 91 AJIL 70 (1997).

8 See First Judgment, Dissenting opinion of Judge Pekkanen, joined by Judges Thór Vilhjálmsson, Lopes Rocha and Löhmus, para. 1.

9 Id., para. 4 (citing a Joint Special Rapporteurs’ report of Jan. 16, 1995, submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on the situation in Colombia).

10 Ahmed v. Austria, 1996 Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2195, 24 Eur Hum Rts Rep. 278 (1997), para. 38; Chahal, supra note 5, paras. 73–74.

11 No. 146/1996/767/964, para. 49.

12 Id., para. 53.

13 Having come to that conclusion, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the further complaint that the removal would also be in violation of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention. In regard to the alleged violation of the right to respect for his private life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the Convention, the Court concluded that under that article no other issues arose. Id., paras. 59, 64.

14 See generally Juliane Kokott, The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law (1998).

15 The alteration is provided for in Protocol No. 11 to the Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Freedoms, Restructuring the Control Machinery Established Thereby, May 11, 1994, Eur. TS No. 155, 33 ILM 943 (1994).