Information Note on the Court’s case-law 28
March 2001
Hilal v. the United Kingdom - 45276/99
Judgment 6.3.2001 [Section III]
Article 3
Expulsion
Threatened deportation to Tanzania (Zanzibar): violation
Facts: The applicant, a Tanzanian national, requested asylum in the United Kingdom. He claimed to have been tortured in Zanzibar as an opponent of the Zanzibar Government, although he did not mention the allegations of torture during the first interview, which he claims was only for the purpose of taking initial details. The asylum request was rejected on the ground that the applicant's account was implausible and inconsistent and his appeal was rejected by a Special Adjudicator. The applicant subsequently made fresh representations on the basis of additional evidence which he had obtained, namely a death certificate in respect of his brother, who he claimed had died as a result of being tortured, and a summons addressed to his parents requesting their attendance to explain his conduct in embarrassing the Government. He also produced a medical report supporting his allegations of torture. However, the Secretary of State refused to reverse the decision not to grant asylum, considering that even if the documents were authentic there was no reason that the applicant could not live safely in mainland Tanzania. The applicant was refused leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to refer the new material to the Special Adjudicator. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Law: Article 3 – The decision of the Special Adjudicator relied partly on a lack of substantiation, but the applicant subsequently produced further documentation, and although this material was examined by the Secretary of State and the courts, they did not reach any findings of fact in that respect, since they took their decisions on a different basis, namely the fact that the applicant could safely live in other parts of Tanzania (the so-called "internal flight" solution"). There is no basis for rejecting the documents as forgeries and the Court therefore accepts that the applicant was detained and tortured as a member of the opposition party. In the light of the medical report, the applicant's explanation that he did not think it necesssary to give all details at the first interview becomes far less incredible. While his brother's death certificate does not indicate that torture was a factor in the death, medical notes show that he had been detained and was taken to hospital, where he died, and this is not inconsistent with the applicant's allegations. The evidence of the applicant's wife that police came looking for the applicant on a number of occasions is consistent with the information available about the situation in Zanzibar and it the Court therefore concludes that the applicant would be at risk if returned there. Moreover, the situation in mainland Tanzania is far from satisfactory and discloses an endemic situation of human rights problems: there are reports of ill-treatment by the police and inhuman and degrading prison conditions, and since the mainland police may be regarded as institutionally linked to the Zanzibar police they cannot be relied on as a safeguard against arbitrary action. There is also the possibility of extradition from Tanzania to Zanzibar. Consequently, the Court is not persuaded that the internal flight option offers a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Articles 6 and 8: No separate issue arises under these provisions.
Conclusion: no separate issue (unanimously).
Article 13: The Court was satisfied that the domestic courts give careful scrutiny to claims that an expulsion would expose an applicant to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment and was not convinced that the fact that this scrutiny takes place against the background of the criteria applied in judicial review of administrative decisions (rationality and perverseness) deprived the procedure of its effectiveness. The substance of the complaint was examined by the Court of Appeal, which had the power to afford him the relief he sought.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage. It made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© 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