Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

In an attempt to weaken its commitment against torture, the Government is supporting the Dutch Government’s case in the European Court which seeks to return a foreign national to Algeria. On 22 November Liberty and Justice will challenge the Government’s stance by arguing that the ban against torture is absolute.

Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti said:
“Claims that deporting foreign nationals to face torture will deter terror attacks is illogical considering the attack last summer was carried out by Britons. The prohibition against torture is the cornerstone of human rights protections – remove it and the rule of law will crumble.”

Liberty Press Office on 0207 378 3656 or 079 7383 1128

NOTES TO EDITORS
1. Liberty’s intervention in the Ramzy case will challenge the Government’s intervention in the case which seeks to overrule the decision which maintained that a signatory state “subjects” someone to torture by sending him to another jurisdiction where he faces that risk. The Dutch authorities wish to return Mr. Ramzy to Algeria. The UK Government indicated that it sees the case as an opportunity to challenge the Chahal v UK decision (that a State would violate Article 3 if it returned an individual to a third country where there was a real risk that he would be subjected to Article 3 treatment on his return) and has been given permission to intervene in the case along with Italy, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovakia.
2. On November 3 2005, Liberty successfully intervened in the Limbuela case, arguing that because the State actively bans asylum-seekers from working and thus bars their route to supporting themselves, the removal of minimal state support leading to destitution constitutes ‘inhuman or degrading treatment’ as prohibited by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Law Lords determined in the case that the Article 3 prohibition is absolute.
3. Liberty intervened in the ongoing A and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department in the House of Lords on the principle that evidence obtained under torture must be inadmissible in court to ensure the effectiveness of the prohibition.