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

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.