Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 142

June 2011

Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom - 8319/07

Judgment 28.6.2011 [Section IV]

Article 3

Expulsion

Orders for deportation to Somalia: deportation would constitute a violation

Facts– Both applicants were Somali nationals. Mr Sufi (the first applicant) arrived in the United Kingdom in 2003 and claimed asylum on the ground that he was a member of a minority clan which was persecuted by militia who had killed his father and sister and seriously injured him. His application was refused and his appeal dismissed on the grounds that his account was not credible. In 2008 he was diagnosed as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. Mr Elmi (the second applicant) is a member of the majority Isaaq clan. He arrived in the United Kingdom in 1988 and was granted leave to remain as a refugee. Following convictions for a number of serious criminal offences both applicants were issued with deportation orders. They appealed unsuccessfully.

Somalia is comprised of three autonomous areas: the self-declared Republic of Somaliland in the north west, the state of Puntland in the north east, and the remaining southern and central regions. Somali society has traditionally been characterised by membership of clan families. The country has been without a functioning central government since 1991 and is beset by lawlessness, civil conflict and clan warfare. Although the Transitional Federal Government was established in October 2004 and is recognised by the United Nations, it currently controls only a small section of Mogadishu and is dependent on African Union troops for its survival. A group known as al-Shabaab, which began as part of the armed wing of the Union of Islamic Courts, has emerged as the most powerful and effective armed faction on the ground, especially in southern Somalia and has steadily been moving forces up towards the capital, Mogadishu.

In their applications to the European Court, the applicants complained that they would be at risk of ill-treatment if they were deported to Somalia.

Law– Article 3: The sole question in an expulsion case was whether, in all the circumstances of the case, substantial grounds had been shown for believing that the applicant would, if returned, face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3*.1 If the existence of such a risk was established, the applicant’s removal would necessarily breach Article 3, regardless of whether the risk emanated from a general situation of violence, a personal characteristic of the applicant, or a combination of the two. However, not every situation of general violence would give rise to such a risk. On the contrary, a general situation of violence would only be of sufficient intensity to create such a risk “in the most extreme cases”. The following criteria** were relevant (but not exhaustive) for the purposes of identifying a conflict’s level of intensity: whether the parties to the conflict were either employing methods and tactics of warfare which increased the risk of civilian casualties or directly targeting civilians; whether the use of such methods and/or tactics was widespread among the parties to the conflict; whether the fighting was localised or widespread; and finally, the number of civilians killed, injured and displaced as a result of the fighting.

Turning to the situation in Somalia, Mogadishu, the proposed point of return, was subjected to indiscriminate bombardments and military offensives, and unpredictable and widespread violence. It had substantial numbers of civilian casualties and displaced persons. While