THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56455/00
by Mohanarajah THANGARAJAH
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 August 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrW. Fuhrmann,
MrP. Kūris,
MrsF. Tulkens,
MrK. Jungwiert,
SirNicolas Bratza,
MrK. Traja, judges,
andMrsS. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced on 6 April 2000 and registered on 11 April 2000,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Sri Lankan national, born in 1975 and currently living in the United Kingdom. He is represented before the Court by Mr Ram, of Sasdev & Co solicitors, Walthamstow.
A.The circumstances of the case[Note1]
The applicant arrived in the United Kingdom on 14 March 1993, claiming asylum when questioned by the immigration officer. He claimed that if returned to his village (in an area where the Tamil Tigers were active) he would be required to join them and that as a young Tamil male the army might arrest and torture him.
The Secretary of State refused asylum on 14 February 1996, noting that the applicant had left Sri Lanka on a legal passport, that the applicant was not a member of any particular party or involved in any particular political activity and that though the applicant claimed that he had been arrested in March 1989, May 1990 and June 1992 this was for brief periods and the authorities had a legitimate interest in questioning him about involvement in serious terrorist crimes.
The applicant’s claims were examined by a Special Adjudicator, before whom the applicant provided further details of his alleged experiences in detention with the army, during which he was beaten with S-lon pipes and witnessed the arbitrary execution of his cousin. He referred to various scars which he claimed would place him at risk as the army would treat him as a Tamil Tiger and showed his legs to the Adjudicator.
In his decision rejecting the applicant’s claims on 12 January 1998, the Adjudicator acknowledged that there was visible scarring on the applicant’s knees and lower part of his legs and on his foot but made no findings as regarded an alleged scar on the head or the loss of a testicle. He commented adversely on the failure to provide any independent medical evidence concerning these injuries. He found that the applicant’s account gave the appearance of embellishment since his original account to the immigration authorities and that his overall credibility was damaged by his confused and inconsistent evidence. Though the marks on his body suggested that he had suffered physically and pointed to past persecution, he noted the most serious incident occurred in May 1990 and that there was a gap of two years until he was allegedly rounded up again in June 1992. He considered that there was no evidence that the applicant was of particular interest to the authorities or that he was at risk of persecution.
Leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal was refused on 28 January 1998.
The applicant twice provided further material to the Secretary of State to support his claims, including a psychological report dated 11 January 1999, which stated that the applicant had developed depression and post-traumatic stress disorder related to the times when he was tortured or seriously hurt. It also noted, without comment, the presence of bad scarring, including an apparent bullet wound in the thigh and the loss of one testicle. On 2 December 1998 and 3 November 1999, the Secretary of State maintained his refusal of asylum, declining on the latter occasion to accept that the report accurately reflected the applicant’s mental state.
The applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decisions was rejected by the High Court on 17 February 2000.
Removal directions were set for 12 April 2000.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that he would face the risk of torture and ill-treatment on return to Sri Lanka as a young Tamil male bearing signs of injuries that would, on any routine check or arrest by the army, give them reason to suspect him of being involved with the Tamil Tigers. He also claimed that it would be inhuman and degrading to return him to Sri Lanka in light of the psychiatric evidence. He invoked Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
PROCEDURE
On 11 April 2000, the President requested the Government, pursuant to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, to suspend the measure of expulsion until the Chamber next met on 27 April 2000. The applicant’s solicitors were requested by the Rapporteur to provide a medical report on the applicant’s physical injuries by that date and to complete and return an application form, with supporting documents.
On 26 April 2000, the applicant’s solicitors informed the Court that the applicant had a medical appointment on 5 May 2000 with the Medical Foundation Caring for the Victims of Torture.
On 27 April 2000, the Court decided to prolong the Rule 39 indication until 11 May 2000.
On 17 May 2000, the applicant’s solicitors informed the Court that the applicant had not attended the medical appointment and requesting further time in which to arrange a further appointment.
On 31 May 2000, the Registry warned the applicant’s solicitors that if the documents required by the Court for its examination of the case were not submitted before 28 June 2000 the case might be struck from the list.
By letter of 30 June 2000, the applicant’s solicitors stated that they were unable to comply with the Court’s request as the applicant had not responded to their advice. In these circumstances, they could not proceed with the application.
THE LAW
The Court recalls that the applicant’s solicitors were requested to provide a medical report concerning the applicant’s physical injuries and to complete and return an application form. They have failed to do so, notwithstanding an extension in the time-limit set for that purpose.
In these circumstances, noting that it is incumbent on applicants to pursue their applications before the Court with reasonable expedition and in good faith, the Court finds that the applicant must be taken as no longer intending to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(a) of the Convention. There is no indication that respect for human rights requires the further examination of the case.
Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]Include information obtained from the Government on the Judge Rapporteur’s request (Rule 49 § 2 (a)) or Chamber’s request (Rule 54 § 3 (a)), with indication of this fact, where appropriate.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy