Notes: unanimous judgment affirming the Commission's conclusion that Article 3 could be engaged by the extradition process and that the extraditing state could be responsible for the breach where it is aware of a real risk that the person may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. in the light of “evolving standards in Western Europe regarding the existence and use of the death penalty”, this punishment should be considered as inhuman and degrading and was therefore effectively prohibited by Article 3. Article 3 could not stand in the way of the extradition of a suspect simply because they might be subject to the death penalty. even if the extradition itself would not constitute a breach of Article 3, such factors as the execution method, the detainee's personal circumstances, the sentence's disproportionality to the gravity of the crime, and conditions of detention could all violate Article 3. “death row phenomenon” did breach Article 3. applicant's extradition to the United States would expose him to a real risk of treatment going beyond the threshold set by Article 3. the legitimate purpose of extradition could be achieved by another means [extradition or deportation to Germany], which would not involve suffering of such exceptional intensity or duration.
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.