## Facts

- The applicant, Othman (Abu Qatada), a Jordanian national, was subject to extradition proceedings in the UK.
- The UK sought to deport Othman to Jordan, where he faced retrial on terrorism charges.
- Allegations were made that key evidence against him in Jordan was obtained by torture of co-defendants.
- The UK government obtained diplomatic assurances from Jordan to address concerns about possible mistreatment and unfair trial.
- The applicant argued that deportation would expose him to a real risk of a trial in which evidence obtained by torture would be used, breaching Article 6 of the ECHR.
- Domestic courts, including the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Court of Appeal, initially found these assurances inadequate, citing the genuine risk of an unfair trial.
- The ECtHR was called upon to determine whether deportation in these circumstances would violate Othman's right to a fair trial under the Convention.

## Issues

1. Whether deporting Othman to Jordan would expose him to a real risk of a trial where evidence obtained by torture would be used, contrary to Article 6 ECHR.
2. Whether diplomatic assurances provided by Jordan were sufficient to remove the real risk of an unfair trial.
3. How the principles of non-refoulement and fair trial rights apply in extradition cases concerning national security and terrorism allegations.

## Decision

- The ECtHR found that deporting Othman to Jordan would violate Article 6 ECHR due to the genuine risk that evidence obtained by torture would be used in proceedings against him.
- The Court held that diplomatic assurances from the Jordanian government did not offer adequate safeguards to eliminate this risk.
- The Court affirmed that the threshold for a flagrant denial of justice in extradition cases involving Article 6 is high, but was met in this case.
- The ruling emphasized the obligation of states not to deport individuals where there is a real risk of a trial based on torture-tainted evidence.

## Legal Principles

- The non-refoulement doctrine prohibits transferring individuals to states where they face real risks of human rights violations, including unfair trials.
- Article 6 ECHR applies extraterritorially when deportation would result in a flagrant denial of justice.
- Diplomatic assurances cannot automatically cure risks of unfair trial; their reliability depends on context, including the human rights record of the receiving state.
- The ECtHR prioritizes procedural fairness and upholds stringent standards regarding the use of torture-derived evidence in criminal trials.

## Conclusion

Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK established that extradition is unlawful where there is a real risk of a trial reliant on torture-derived evidence, and diplomatic assurances alone may be insufficient. This case reinforced the high threshold for fair trial protections under Article 6 in extradition contexts, shaping subsequent legal practice concerning the intersection of national security and human rights.

Othman (Abu Qatada) v UK (2012) 55 EHRR 1