## Facts

- Jens Soering, a German national, was wanted by Virginia authorities for the 1985 murders of his girlfriend’s parents.
- After leaving the United States, Soering and his girlfriend were arrested in England in 1986 on cheque-fraud charges.
- During questioning in England by a Virginia investigator, Soering admitted killing the victims.
- A Virginia grand jury indicted Soering for capital murder, and the United States sought extradition from the United Kingdom under a bilateral treaty.
- UK authorities sought assurances regarding capital punishment; Virginia authorities indicated an intention to pursue the death penalty.
- Soering challenged extradition domestically but remained detained pending a final decision by the UK Home Secretary.
- Before the European human-rights organs, psychiatric evidence described severe anticipated psychological suffering tied to prolonged detention under sentence of death in Virginia and fear of violence and sexual abuse in death-row conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether extraditing Soering to the United States, given a real risk of the “death row phenomenon” in Virginia, would make the United Kingdom responsible for inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.
2. Whether extradition would violate Article 6 based on alleged risks of unfair trial processes in Virginia.
3. Whether the United Kingdom provided an effective remedy under Article 13 to challenge the asserted Article 3 risk before extradition.

## Decision

- The court held that executing the decision to extradite Soering, in the circumstances, would violate Article 3.
- The court found no violation of Article 6 because the asserted trial risks did not meet the high threshold required to bar extradition on fair-trial grounds.
- The court found no violation of Article 13 because domestic avenues (including habeas corpus and judicial review) were available to raise the Article 3 complaint prior to extradition.

## Legal Principles

- A contracting state may incur responsibility under Article 3 by extraditing or removing a person to a non-contracting state where substantial grounds show a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3.
- Article 3’s prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment is absolute and is not overridden by extradition interests or treaty-based cooperation.
- The “death row phenomenon” can, in certain circumstances, amount to inhuman treatment based on the cumulative effect of prolonged delay under sentence of death, harsh confinement conditions, and severe psychological distress.
- Article 3 risk assessment is fact-specific and may consider the person’s individual vulnerability, including age and mental condition.
- Article 6 bars extradition only in exceptional cases where the person faces a “flagrant denial of justice” in the receiving state.
- Article 13 is satisfied where domestic procedures provide a practical means to challenge the alleged Convention violation before removal.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that extradition would breach Article 3 because foreseeable exposure to Virginia’s death-row conditions and prolonged pre-execution delay would cause inhuman treatment, particularly given Soering’s personal vulnerability; it rejected separate claims under Articles 6 and 13.


Soering v. United Kingdom, 161 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989)