EIT: Henkilön käännyttäminen Syyriaan loukkaisi mm. oikeutta elämään ja kidutuksen kieltoa

17.2.2017 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin (EIT) on tuoreessa Venäjää koskevassa ratkaisussaan arvioinut Syyrian turvallisuustilannetta. EIT tuli siihen tulokseen, että Venäjällä ollutta henkilöä ei voitu käännyttää Syyriaan nykyisessä tilanteessa saattamatta häntä hengenvaaraan tai vaaraan joutua kidutuksen kohteeksi.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The Chamber judgment in the case of S.K. v. Russia (application no. 52722/15) involved a decision by the Russian authorities to detain a Syrian national, S.K., and remove him to his home country. In October and November 2015 S.K. obtained an interim measure from the European Court of Human Rights, indicating that he should not be removed from Russia whilst the Court examined his case. Today the Court held, unanimously, that:

there would be a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of ill-treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if S.K. were to be removed to Syria, because the security and humanitarian situation, as well as the type and extent of hostilities and violence in the country, would expose him to a risk of death or serious harm to his physical integrity; and
there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 in respect of the risks to a foreigner’s life and limb arising from enforcement of a penalty of administrative removal. It has not been convincingly shown that the available domestic remedies fully satisfied the requirements of “effectiveness” for this type of case, namely the independent and rigorous scrutiny of the risks, a possibility to prevent removal if such risks were shown to be justified and an “automatic suspensive effect” produced vis-à-vis the impugned penalty during the use of the said domestic remedies.

The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been violations of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty) and Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) on account of the applicant’s detention with a view to enforcing the penalty of administrative removal.

Under Article 46 (binding force and implementation of judgments), the Court indicated with reference to its findings under Article 5 of the Convention that it would be appropriate to release S.K. without delay, and no later than on the day following notification that the present judgment has become final.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments