The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights has issued a press release confirming that their decision in the case of Sanchez v. UK (in which BSQ is instructed) will be handed down on the 3rd of November 2022 at Strasbourg.

The landmark case raises important legal issues about how Article 3 of the European convention – which states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment' - applies to extradition proceedings in general, and to extradition to the United States of America considering that the USA is not a contracting party to the ECHR.

You can find a detailed briefing about the Sanchez case here.

The timing of the judgment is particularly noteworthy given the recent decision on of the First Section of the ECHR in the recent case of Liu v. Poland Application no. 37610/18 delivered on the 6th October 2022. 

One of the main points taken by the United Kingdom in its submissions in Sanchez is that the Court should not try to impose the European Convention’s human rights standards on noncontracting states such as the United States of America. It is a general principle of convention interpretation that the ECHR does not purport to be in means of requiring the contracting states to impose convention standards on other states (see Hawkins and Edwards via the United Kingdom, Nos 9146/07 and 32650/07, para 129, 17th of January 2012.)

Liu concerned an extradition request from a non-contracting state, in that instance China. In its decision in Liu, the First Section held that that it could depart from that general principle:  

“Where there are many significant shortcomings in the domestic legislation in the country of destination and allegations of serious abuses identified in independent reports, coming from numerous sources, the benefit of the doubt should be granted to an individual seeking protection (see J.K. and Others v. Sweden, cited above, § 98).”

The Court went on to hold that Liu’s extradition to China should be prohibited. This is because it was likely that on his return, he would be held at a prison which did not meet minimum convention human rights standards. This was supported by “credible and consistent reports” by various international, national, and non-government organisations of torture other forms of ill treatment in Chinese detention facilities and penitentiaries. The First Section concluded this “equated to the existence of a general situation of violence” in these facilities.

On that basis the Court found that Liu would face a real risk of ill-treatment if extradited to China.

Interestingly, the UK in their submissions in Sanchez have tried to contrast the position of the USA against other more authoritarian non-Contracting regimes by emphasising America’s long-standing respect for traditions of democracy and human rights.  This is cited as a rationale against a strict transposition of Convention standards even if the Chamber were to find the arrangements for life without parole prisoners in the USA violated Article 3. It remains to be seen if the Grand Chamber will adopt the same robust approach as the First Section in Liu when deciding Sanchez’s claims against the USA.

If you require advice or assistance in relation to an extradition request please contact our London offices for a confidential consultation.

You can read more about how our extradition solicitors work and our expertise in representing individuals who are sought for extradition outside the UK here.