|
The European Court of Human Rights will be
holding the hearing of Shayan Baram Saadi
15.5.2007 |
|
|
|
May
15, 2007
The applicant, Shayan Baram Saadi, is a 30-year-old
Iraqi national who lives in London.
Mr. Saadi, an Iraqi Kurd and a member of the Iraqi
Workers' Communist Party, fled from Iraq when, in
the course of his duties as a hospital doctor, he
treated and facilitated the escape of three fellow
party members who had been injured in an attack.
He arrived at London Heathrow Airport on 30 December
2000 where he immediately claimed asylum. The
immigration officer contacted Oakington Reception
Centre, a new detention facility for asylum seekers
considered unlikely to abscond and to whom a
"fast-track" procedure could be applied.
As there was no available space at Oakington, the
applicant was initially granted "temporary
admission". He was taken into detention at Oakington
on 2 January 2001.
The applicant was initially given a standard form
which did not make clear that the reason for his
detention was that the fact-track procedure was
being applied to his asylum claim.
On 5 January 2001 the applicant's representative
telephoned the Chief Immigration Officer and was
told that the reason for the detention was that the
applicant was an Iraqi who met the criteria to be
detained at Oakington.
The applicant's asylum claim was initially refused
on 8 January 2001 and he was formally refused leave
to enter the UK.
He was released the next day. He appealed against
the Home Office decision and was subsequently
granted asylum on 14 January 2003.
The applicant, together with three other Kurdish
Iraqi detainees who had been held at Oakington,
applied for permission for judicial review of their
detention claiming that it was unlawful under
domestic law and under Article 5 (right to liberty
and security) of the European Convention on Human
Rights. Both the Court of Appeal and the House of
Lords held that the detention was lawful in domestic
law.
In connection with Article 5 they each held that the
detention was for the purpose of deciding whether to
authorise entry and that the detention did not have
to be "necessary" to be compatible with that
provision. They further maintained that the
detention was "to prevent unauthorised entry" and
that the measure was not disproportionate. The House
of Lords also found that, given the high number of
interviews every day (up to 150), detention was
necessary for the speed and efficiency of the
system.
The applicant complained about his detention at
Oakington and about the fact that he was given no
reasons for it. He relied on Article 5 § 1 (right to
liberty and security) and 2 (everyone who is
arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language
which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest
and of any charge against him), and Article 14
(prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.
In its Chamber judgment of 11 July 2006 (press
release no. 419 of 2006), the Court held, by four
votes to three, that there had been no violation of
Article 5 § 1, and, unanimously, that there had been
a violation of Article 5 § 2.
The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the
applicant's request.
Decisions, judgments and further information about
the Court can be found on its Internet site
http://www.echr.coe.int
Press contacts
Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)
Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)
Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35
30)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in
Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in
1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950
European Convention on Human Rights.
1 Under Article 43 of the European Convention on
Human Rights, within three months from the date of a
Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in
exceptional cases, request that the case be referred
to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that
event, a panel of five judges considers whether the
case raises a serious question affecting the
interpretation or application of the Convention or
its protocols, or a serious issue of general
importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will
deliver a final judgment. If no such question or
issue arises, the panel will reject the equest, at
which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise
Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the
three-month period or earlier if the parties declare
that they do not intend to make a request to refer.
2 These summaries by the Registry do not bind the
Court.
Press Release
Council of Europe Press Division
Ref: 306a07
Tel: +33 (0)3 88 41 25 60
Fax:+33 (0)3 88 41 39 11
pressunit@coe.int
internet:
www.coe.int/press
A political organisation set up in 1949, the Council
of Europe works to promote democracy and human
rights continent-wide. It also develops common
responses to social, cultural and legal challenges
in its 47 member states.
www.coe.int
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 