Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 151
April 2012
Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom - 24027/07
Judgment 10.4.2012 [Section IV]
Article 3
Extradition
Conditions of detention in super-max US prison: extradition would not constitute a violation
Facts – The applicants were indicted on various charges of terrorism in the United States, which requested their extradition. They complained before the European Court about the risk of serving their prison term in the US in ADX Florence, a super-max prison, where they would be subjected to special administrative measures, and of being sentenced to irreducible life sentences.
Law – Article 3
(a) Prison conditions at ADX Florence: Although the applicants’ detention at ADX Florence would not be inevitable, the Government accepted that there was a real risk of their detention there if they were extradited and convicted in the US. It seemed undisputed that the physical conditions at ADX Florence – the size of the cells, the lighting and sanitary facilities – met the requirements of Article 3. However, the applicants complained of a lack of procedural safeguards before their placement there and the ADX’s restrictive conditions and lack of human contact. As to the first complaint, the US authorities had shown that not all inmates convicted of international terrorism offences were serving time at ADX Florence. Instead, the Federal Bureau of Prisons seemed to apply accessible and rational criteria when deciding whether to transfer an inmate to that facility. Moreover, a hearing was held before such transfers were made and the inmates could bring a claim in the federal courts under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. As regards the second complaint, even though the applicants were not physically dangerous, the US authorities would be justified in considering them as posing a significant security risk justifying limitations on their ability to communicate with the outside world. It further seemed that well-established procedures were in place for reviewing an inmate’s security classification. It was undisputed that conditions at ADX Florence, in particular in the special security unit, were highly restrictive as they sought to prevent all physical contact between the inmates and with staff. However, a great deal of in-cell stimulation was provided through television and radio channels, frequent newspapers, books, hobby and craft items and education programmes. Indeed, the range of activities and services provided went beyond what was provided in many prisons in Europe. Moreover, even the inmates under special administrative measures had the right to regular telephone calls, social visits and correspondence with their families. While in their cells, inmates could only communicate with other inmates through the ventilation system, but during recreation periods they were free to communicate without impediment. All of these factors showed that the isolation experienced by ADX inmates was partial and relative.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
(b) Possible life imprisonment: It was not certain that, if extradited, the applicants would be convicted or that a discretionary life sentences would be imposed on them. However, even if such a sentence was imposed on the applicants, given the gravity of their charges, the Court did not consider that they would be grossly disproportionate. Moreover, as the Court had observed in previous cases, in respect of a discretionary life sentence, an Article 3 issue would only arise when it could be shown: (i) that the applicant’s continued incarceration no longer served any legitimate penological purpose; and (ii) the sentence was irreducible de facto and de iure. Since none of the applicants had yet been convicted or started serving their sentence, the Court considered that they had not shown that, upon extradition, their incarceration in the US would not serve any legitimate penological purpose. It was further uncertain whether, should that point ever be reached, the US authorities would refuse to avail themselves of mechanisms available in their system to reduce the applicants’ potential sentences.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
The Court decided to adjourn the examination of complaints made by the second applicant, who suffers from schizophrenia, and to examine them at a later date under a new application number.
(See also Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, 4 July 2006, Information Note no. 88; and Harkins and Edwards v. the United Kingdom, nos. 9146/07 and 32650/07, 17 January 2012, Information Note no. 148)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy