Expulsion or extradition cases
II. Relevant domestic law and practice 22. The regulation of entry into and stay in the United Kingdom is governed by Part 1 of the Immigration Act 1971. The practice to be followed in the administration of the Act for regulating entry and stay is contained in statements of the rules laid by the Secretary of State before Parliament ("the Immigration Rules"). 23. Section 3 (1) provides that a person who is not a British citizen shall not enter the United Kingdom unless given leave to do so in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Leave to enter may be granted for a limited or for an indefinite period. 24. Under section 4 (1) of the Act the power to grant or refuse leave to enter is exercised by immigration officers whereas the power to grant leave to remain in the United Kingdom is exercised by the Secretary of State. These powers are exercisable by notice in writing given to the person affected. 25. A person, such as the applicant, who has been refused leave to enter but is physically in the United Kingdom pending his removal and seeks to be allowed to stay there does not fall to be treated as applying for leave to remain. Since no leave to enter had been granted to the applicant, it was right according to the judgment of Sir Iain Glidewell in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte D. (Court of Appeal, 15 February 1996) for the immigration officer to treat his application as an application for leave to enter rather than for leave to remain. A. Policy guidelines on how to proceed in cases in which persons seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom are suffering from AIDS or are HIV-positive 26. The Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office issued a policy document (BDI 3/95) on this subject in August 1995. Paragraph 2 of the guidelines specifies that the fact that a person is suffering from AIDS or is HIV-positive is not a ground for refusing leave to enter or leave to remain if the person concerned otherwise qualifies under the Immigration Rules. Equally, this fact is not in itself a sufficient ground to justify the exercise of discretion where the person concerned has not met the requirements of the Rules. The policy guidelines distinguish between applications for leave to enter and applications for leave to remain. 27. On applications for leave to enter (paragraph 4 of the guidelines), where the person is suffering from AIDS, the policy and practice is to adhere to the provisions of the Immigration Rules in the normal way. Where such a person does not qualify under the Rules, entry is refused. 28. On applications for leave to remain (paragraph 5 of the guidelines), the application should be dealt with normally on its merits under the applicable Rules. However, there is a discretion outside the Rules which can be exercised in strong compassionate circumstances. Paragraph 5.4 states that: "... there may be cases where it is apparent that there are no facilities for treatment available in the applicant ’ s own country. Where evidence suggests that this absence of treatment significantly shortens the life expectancy of the applicant it will normally be appropriate to grant leave to remain." B. Other relevant materials 29. Among the documentary materials submitted by the applicant, are the following. 1. International policy statements on human rights and AIDS 30. International concern about AIDS has resulted in the adoption of several international texts which have addressed, inter alia, the protection of the human rights of the victims of the disease. Thus, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights adopted a resolution on 9 March 1993 on the protection of human rights in the context of human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in which it called upon "all States to ensure that their laws, policies and practices introduced in the context of AIDS respect human rights standards". 31. At a Summit of Heads of Government or Representatives of forty-two States meeting in Paris on 1 December 1994, a declaration was adopted in which the participating States solemnly declared their obligation "to act with compassion for and in solidarity with those with HIV or at risk of becoming infected, both within [their] societies and internationally". 2. Extract of the WHO report on "Health conditions in the Americas ", 1994, Volume II, concerning St Kitts and Nevis 32. "Health and living conditions ... there are a number of serious environmental problems, such as inadequate disposal of solid and liquid waste - especially untreated sewage - into coastal lands and waters, resulting in coastal zone degradation, fish depletion and health problems (gastro ‑ enteritis) ..." 33. According to this publication, there are two general hospitals in St Kitts, one with 174 beds and the other with 38. There is also a "cottage" hospital with 10 beds. There are two homes providing geriatric care. 3. "Treatment issues - a basic guide to medical treatment options for people with HIV and AIDS" produced in April 1996 by the Terrence Higgins Trust 34. This guide describes the three medical strategies available for treating HIV infection and AIDS: using anti-HIV drugs which attack HIV itself to delay or prevent damage to the immune system, treating or preventing opportunistic infections which take advantage of damage to the immune system and strengthening and restoring the immune system. Amongst the first category, several drugs can be used, including AZT (also known as Zidovudine or its tradename Retrovir ). This belongs to a family of drugs called nucleoside analogues which inhibit an enzyme produced by HIV called reverse transcriptase (RT). If RT is inhibited, HIV cannot infect new cells and the build-up of virus in the body is slowed down. However, the existing drugs are only partially effective and at best can only delay the worsening of HIV-related disease rather than prevent it. 35. As regards the second category, persons whose immune systems have been significantly damaged are vulnerable to a range of infections and tumours known as opportunistic infections. These commonly include cytomegalovirus (herpes virus), Kaposi ’ s sarcoma, anaemia, tuberculosis, toxoplasmosis and PCP. PCP is a form of pneumonia which in people infected with HIV may affect the lymph nodes, bone marrow, spleen and liver as well as the lungs. Steps to avoid such infections include taking care with food and drink and prophylactic treatment by drugs. In the case of PCP, which was a common cause of death during the first years of the epidemic and is still one of the commonest AIDS illnesses, options include the long-term taking of antibiotics such as cotrimoxazole and the use of nebulised pentamidine which is intended to protect the lungs. 36. In relation to the third category, treatment which strengthens or restores the immune system, research has yet to produce any clear results. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 37. The applicant lodged his application (no. 30240/96) with the Commission on 15 February 1996. He alleged that his proposed removal to St Kitts would be in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention (art. 2, art. 3, art. 8) and that he had been denied an effective remedy to challenge the removal order in breach of Article 13 (art. 13). The Commission declared the application admissible on 26 June 1996. In its report of 15 October 1996 (Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion that Article 3 (art. 3) would be violated if the applicant were to be removed to St Kitts (eleven votes to seven); that it was unnecessary to examine the complaint under Article 2 (art. 2) (unanimously); that no separate issue arose under Article 8 (art. 8) (unanimously); and that there had been no violation of Article 13 (art. 13) (thirteen votes to five). The full text of the Commission ’ s opinion and of the two separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment [3] FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT 38. In their memorial and at the oral hearing the Government requested the Court to decide and declare that the facts disclose no breach of the applicant ’ s rights under Articles 2, 3, 8 or 13 of the Convention (art. 2, art. 3, art. 8, art. 13). The applicant requested the Court in his memorial and at the oral hearing to find that his proposed removal from the United Kingdom would, if implemented, constitute a breach of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention (art. 2, art. 3, art. 8) and that he had no effective remedy in respect of those complaints in breach of Article 13 (art. 13). AS TO THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 3) 39. The applicant maintained that his removal to St Kitts would expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3), which provides: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." A. Arguments of those appearing before the Court 1. The applicant 40. The applicant maintained that his removal to St Kitts would condemn him to spend his remaining days in pain and suffering in conditions of isolation, squalor and destitution. He had no close relatives or friends in St Kitts to attend to him as he approached death. He had no accommodation, no financial resources and no access to any means of social support. It was an established fact that the withdrawal of his current medical treatment would hasten his death on account of the unavailability of similar treatment in St Kitts. His already weakened immune system would not be able to resist the many opportunistic infections to which he would be exposed on account of his homelessness, lack of proper diet and the poor sanitation on the island. The hospital facilities were extremely limited and certainly not capable of arresting the development of infections provoked by the harsh physical environment in which he would be obliged to fend for himself. His death would thus not only be further accelerated, it would also come about in conditions which would be inhuman and degrading. 41. In June 1996, his life expectancy was stated to be in the region of eight to twelve months even if he continued to receive treatment in the United Kingdom. His health had declined since then. As he was now clearly weak and close to death, his removal by the respondent State at this late stage would certainly exacerbate his fate. 2. The Government 42. The Government requested the Court to find that the applicant had no valid claim under Article 3 (art. 3) in the circumstances of the case since he would not be exposed in the receiving country to any form of treatment which breached the standards of Article 3 (art. 3). His hardship and reduced life expectancy would stem from his terminal and incurable illness coupled with the deficiencies in the health and social-welfare system of a poor, developing country. He would find himself in the same situation as other AIDS victims in St Kitts. In fact he would have been returned in January 1993 to St Kitts, where he had spent most of his life, had it not been for his prosecution and conviction. 43. The Government also disputed the applicant ’ s claim that he would be left alone and without access to treatment for his condition. They maintained that he had at least one cousin living in St Kitts and that there were hospitals caring for AIDS patients, including those suffering from opportunistic infections (see paragraph 17 above). Even if the treatment and medication fell short of that currently administered to the applicant in the United Kingdom, this in itself did not amount to a breach of Article 3 standards (art. 3). 44. Before the Court the Government observed that it was their policy not to remove a person who was unfit to travel. They gave an undertaking to the Court not to remove the applicant unless, in the light of an assessment of his medical condition after the Court gives judgment, he is fit to travel. 3. The Commission 45. The Commission concluded that the removal of the applicant to St Kitts would engage the responsibility of the respondent State under Article 3 (art. 3) even though the risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment stemmed from factors for which the authorities in that country could not be held responsible. The risk was substantiated and real. If returned, he would be deprived of his current medical treatment and his already weakened immune system would be exposed to untreatable opportunistic infections which would reduce further his limited life expectancy and cause him severe pain and mental suffering. He would be homeless and without any form of moral, social or family support in the final stages of his deadly illness. B. The Court ’ s assessment 46. The Court recalls at the outset that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. It also notes the gravity of the offence which was committed by the applicant and is acutely aware of the problems confronting Contracting States in their efforts to combat the harm caused to their societies through the supply of drugs from abroad. The administration of severe sanctions to persons involved in drug trafficking, including expulsion of alien drug couriers like the applicant, is a justified response to this scourge. 47. However, in exercising their right to expel such aliens Contracting States must have regard to Article 3 of the Convention (art. 3), which enshrines one of the fundamental values of democratic societies. It is precisely for this reason that the Court has repeatedly stressed in its line of authorities involving extradition, expulsion or deportation of individuals to third countries that Article 3 (art. 3) prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that its guarantees apply irrespective of the reprehensible nature of the conduct of the person in question (see, most recently, the Ahmed v. Austria judgment of 17 December 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-VI, p. 2206, para. 38; and the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, p. 1853, paras. 73-74). 48. The Court observes that the above principle is applicable to the applicant ’ s removal under the Immigration Act 1971. Regardless of whether or not he ever entered the United Kingdom in the technical sense (see paragraph 25 above) it is to be noted that he has been physically present there and thus within the jurisdiction of the respondent State within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention (art. 1) since 21 January 1993. It is for the respondent State therefore to secure to the applicant the rights guaranteed under Article 3 (art. 3) irrespective of the gravity of the offence which he committed. 49. It is true that this principle has so far been applied by the Court in contexts in which the risk to the individual of being subjected to any of the proscribed forms of treatment emanates from intentionally inflicted acts of the public authorities in the receiving country or from those of non-State bodies in that country when the authorities there are unable to afford him appropriate protection (see, for example, the Ahmed judgment, loc. cit., p. 2207, para. 44). Aside from these situations and given the fundamental importance of Article 3 (art. 3) in the Convention system, the Court must reserve to itself sufficient flexibility to address the application of that Article (art. 3) in other contexts which might arise. It is not therefore prevented from scrutinising an applicant ’ s claim under Article 3 (art. 3) where the source of the risk of proscribed treatment in the receiving country stems from factors which cannot engage either directly or indirectly the responsibility of the public authorities of that country, or which, taken alone, do not in themselves infringe the standards of that Article (art. 3). To limit the application of Article 3 (art. 3) in this manner would be to undermine the absolute character of its protection. In any such contexts, however, the Court must subject all the circumstances surrounding the case to a rigorous scrutiny, especially the applicant ’ s personal situation in the expelling State. 50. Against this background the Court will determine whether there is a real risk that the applicant ’ s removal would be contrary to the standards of Article 3 (art. 3) in view of his present medical condition. In so doing the Court will assess the risk in the light of the material before it at the time of its consideration of the case, including the most recent information on his state of health (see the Ahmed judgment, loc. cit., p. 2207, para. 43). 51. The Court notes that the applicant is in the advanced stages of a terminal and incurable illness. At the date of the hearing, it was observed that there had been a marked decline in his condition and he had to be transferred to a hospital. His condition was giving rise to concern (see paragraph 21 above). The limited quality of life he now enjoys results from the availability of sophisticated treatment and medication in the United Kingdom and the care and kindness administered by a charitable organisation. He has been counselled on how to approach death and has formed bonds with his carers (see paragraph 19 above). 52. The abrupt withdrawal of these facilities will entail the most dramatic consequences for him. It is not disputed that his removal will hasten his death. There is a serious danger that the conditions of adversity which await him in St Kitts will further reduce his already limited life expectancy and subject him to acute mental and physical suffering. Any medical treatment which he might hope to receive there could not contend with the infections which he may possibly contract on account of his lack of shelter and of a proper diet as well as exposure to the health and sanitation problems which beset the population of St Kitts (see paragraph 32 above). While he may have a cousin in St Kitts (see paragraph 18 above), no evidence has been adduced to show whether this person would be willing or in a position to attend to the needs of a terminally ill man. There is no evidence of any other form of moral or social support. Nor has it been shown whether the applicant would be guaranteed a bed in either of the hospitals on the island which, according to the Government, care for AIDS patients (see paragraph 17 above). 53. In view of these exceptional circumstances and bearing in mind the critical stage now reached in the applicant ’ s fatal illness, the implementation of the decision to remove him to St Kitts would amount to inhuman treatment by the respondent State in violation of Article 3 (art. 3). The Court also notes in this respect that the respondent State has assumed responsibility for treating the applicant ’ s condition since August 1994. He has become reliant on the medical and palliative care which he is at present receiving and is no doubt psychologically prepared for death in an environment which is both familiar and compassionate. Although it cannot be said that the conditions which would confront him in the receiving country are themselves a breach of the standards of Article 3 (art. 3), his removal would expose him to a real risk of dying under most distressing circumstances and would thus amount to inhuman treatment. Without calling into question the good faith of the undertaking given to the Court by the Government (see paragraph 44 above), it is to be noted that the above considerations must be seen as wider in scope than the question whether or not the applicant is fit to travel back to St Kitts. 54. Against this background the Court emphasises that aliens who have served their prison sentences and are subject to expulsion cannot in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance provided by the expelling State during their stay in prison. However, in the very exceptional circumstances of this case and given the compelling humanitarian considerations at stake, it must be concluded that the implementation of the decision to remove the applicant would be a violation of Article 3 (art. 3). II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 2) 55. The applicant further maintained that the implementation by the United Kingdom authorities of the decision to remove him to St Kitts would be in breach of Article 2 of the Convention (art. 2), which provides: "1. Everyone ’ s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article (art. 2) when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." 56. The applicant contended that his removal to St Kitts would engage the responsibility of the respondent State under Article 2 (art. 2). He is terminally ill, and the medical evidence submitted to the Court (see paragraphs 14-15 and 20-21 above) confirmed that his already reduced life expectancy would be further shortened if he were to be suddenly deprived of his current medical treatment and sent back to St Kitts. There would, he argued, be a direct causal link between his expulsion and his accelerated death such as to give rise to a violation of the right to life. He submitted that Article 2 (art. 2) denoted a positive obligation to safeguard life which in the circumstances in issue required the Government not to take a measure which would further reduce his limited life expectancy. 57. The Government did not dispute the fact that the removal of the applicant to St Kitts and the consequential loss of the current medical treatment would hasten his death. However, the threat to his life expectancy stemmed not from factors for which the Government could be held responsible but from his own fatal illness in conjunction with the lack of adequate medical treatment in the receiving country. Article 2 (art. 2) was therefore not applicable to the circumstances in issue. In any event the substance of the applicant ’ s complaints could not be separated from the arguments he advanced in furtherance of his allegation under Article 3 (art. 3) and for that reason were best dealt with under the latter provision (art. 3). 58. The Commission did not find it necessary to decide whether the risk to the applicant ’ s life expectancy created by his removal disclosed a breach of Article 2 (art. 2). It considered that it would be more appropriate to deal globally with this allegation when examining his related complaints under Article 3 (art. 3). 59. The Court for its part shares the views of the Government and the Commission that the complaints raised by the applicant under Article 2 (art. 2) are indissociable from the substance of his complaint under Article 3 (art. 3) in respect of the consequences of the impugned decision for his life, health and welfare. It notes in this respect that the applicant stated before the Court that he was content to base his case under Article 3 (art. 3). Having regard to its finding that the removal of the applicant to St Kitts would give rise to a violation of Article 3 (art. 3) (see paragraph 54 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine his complaint under Article 2 (art. 2). III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 8) 60. The applicant also alleged that his proposed removal to St Kitts would violate his right to respect for his private life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention (art. 8). Article 8 (art. 8) provides: "1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." 61. In support of this argument the applicant maintained that his removal would amount to a disproportionate interference with his right to respect for his private life, and in particular his right to respect for his physical integrity. While readily accepting that the offence he had committed was a very serious one, he requested the Court to consider the impact which his removal to St Kitts would entail for him, a terminally ill person with no family or close relatives in the receiving country, no moral or social support and no adequate medical treatment to stave off infection to his already weakened immune system. His continued presence in the United Kingdom could not be considered a burden on the domestic health resources and, furthermore, there were no indications that he would reoffend. 62. The Government maintained that the applicant could not rely on Article 8 (art. 8) to challenge the impact of the impugned decision on his right to private life since his private life was constituted in the receiving country where he had lived most of his life. Any links which the applicant had with the United Kingdom were the direct result of the offence for which he had been sentenced. Even if Article 8 (art. 8) were to be regarded as applicable, the interference with his medical interests by removing him to St Kitts was justified, given the seriousness of the offence he had committed, for reasons of the prevention of crime and in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. 63. Although the Commission found that no separate issue arose under Article 8 (art. 8) in view of its findings under Article 3 (art. 3), the Delegate invited the Court to find a violation of Article 8 (art. 8) in the event of a conclusion that the applicant ’ s removal to St Kitts would not violate Article 3 (art. 3). 64. Having regard to its finding under Article 3 (art. 3) (see paragraph 54 above), the Court concludes that the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 8 (art. 8) raise no separate issue. IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 13) 65. The applicant complained that he had no effective remedy in English law in respect of his complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention (art. 2, art. 3, art. 8). He contended that this gave rise to a breach of Article 13 of the Convention (art. 13), which provides: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity." 66. The applicant pointed to the limitations which circumscribed an effective review by courts in the United Kingdom of the decisions reached by the authorities in expulsion cases. When reviewing the legality of administrative decisions the courts did not treat the Convention and the principles developed by the Court as a relevant consideration; nor was the decision-maker obliged to take account of the Convention and the case-law of the Convention institutions when exercising the powers conferred by legislation such as the Immigration Act 1971. Admittedly, the domestic courts will review decisions with a greater rigour when they have an impact on human rights, but even in such cases they do not take a Convention ‑ based approach. Thus, in the case in issue, the Court of Appeal did not seek to satisfy itself whether the removal of the applicant would expose him to inhuman and degrading treatment but merely examined whether the decision-maker had taken this factor into account. This, he maintained, fell short of the test of "independent scrutiny" of a claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment proscribed by Article 3 (art. 3) which the Court in its Chahal judgment (loc. cit., p. 1871, para. 151) had considered to be a crucial aspect of an effective remedy. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal had regarded the seriousness of the applicant ’ s offence as a paramount consideration in deciding that the impugned decision was not an irrational one and had failed also to take adequate account of the Convention ’ s requirements when dealing with his complaints under Articles 2 and 8 (art. 2, art. 8). For these reasons it could not be said that the judicial review proceedings afforded him an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 (art. 13). 67. The Government disputed this argument and invited the Court to confirm the conclusion which it had reached in certain earlier judgments that judicial review proceedings afforded an effective remedy to challenge the legality of a decision to expel or deport an individual. The courts in the United Kingdom applied a "most anxious scrutiny" test when reviewing administrative decisions which affect the fundamental rights of individuals. The Court of Appeal applied such a test in this case when assessing the merits of the decision to remove the applicant and took due account of the hardship which the implementation of the decision would cause the applicant. The applicant cannot therefore argue that he was denied an effective remedy. 68. The Commission agreed with the Government. The Court of Appeal examined the substance of the applicant ’ s complaint, including the hardship which would result from his removal. Although the Court of Appeal did not quash the decision to remove him, it had the power to do so. The remedy afforded by judicial review was therefore an effective one. 69. The Court observes that Article 13 of the Convention (art. 13) guarantees the availability at national level of a remedy to enforce the substance of the Convention rights and freedoms in whatever form they might happen to be secured in the domestic legal order. The effect of this Article (art. 13) is thus to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision (art. 13) (see, among other authorities, the Soering v. the United Kingdom judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, p. 47, para. 120; and the Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 39, para. 122). 70. In its Vilvarajah and Others judgment (loc. cit., p. 39, para. 123) and its Soering judgment (loc. cit., pp. 47-48, paras. 121-24) the Court considered judicial review proceedings to be an effective remedy in relation to the complaints raised under Article 3 (art. 3) in the contexts of deportation and extradition. It was satisfied that English courts could effectively control the legality of executive discretion on substantive and procedural grounds and quash decisions as appropriate. It was also accepted that a court in the exercise of its powers of judicial review would have power to quash a decision to expel or deport an individual to a country where it was established that there was a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, on the ground that in all the circumstances of the case the decision was one that no reasonable Secretary of State could take. 71. While it is true that the source of the risk of the prohibited treatment to which the applicant will be exposed and the impugned measure are different from those in the above cases there is no reason to depart from the conclusion reached in those cases in respect of the effectiveness of judicial review proceedings for the purposes of Article 13 (art. 13). Indeed the Court of Appeal had regard to domestic case-law which required it to submit the applicant ’ s plight to the most anxious scrutiny on account of the established risk to his life expectancy. It did so against the background of the criteria which need to be satisfied before an administrative decision can be challenged on the grounds of its irrationality. The substance of the applicant ’ s complaint was therefore examined by the Court of Appeal. That court had the power to afford him the relief he sought. The fact that it did not do so is not a material consideration since the effectiveness of a remedy for the purposes of Article 13 (art. 13) does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for an applicant (see the Vilvarajah and Others judgment, loc. cit., p. 39, para. 122). 72. The applicant maintained that the effectiveness of the remedy invoked first before the High Court and subsequently before the Court of Appeal was undermined on account of their failure to conduct an independent scrutiny of the facts in order to determine whether they disclosed a real risk that he would be exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on the reasoning in the Chahal judgment (loc. cit., p. 1871, para. 151). However the Court notes that in that case the domestic courts were precluded from reviewing the factual basis underlying the national-security considerations invoked by the Home Secretary to justify the expulsion of Mr Chahal. No such considerations arise in the case in issue. 73. The applicant thus had available to him an effective remedy in relation to his complaints under Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Convention (art. 2, art. 3, art. 8). Accordingly there has been no breach of Article 13 (art. 13). V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION (art. 50) 74. Article 50 of the Convention (art. 50) provides: "If the Court finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention, and if the internal law of the said Party allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party." A. Costs and expenses 75. The applicant did not seek damages. He claimed reimbursement of GBP 49,443 and 13,811 French francs (FRF) incurred by way of costs and expenses in respect of the proceedings brought before the Convention institutions. 76. The Government requested the Court to reduce the amount, mainly because the time billed in respect of the preparation of certain parts of the case was excessive and the number of lawyers engaged to work on the case unreasonable. They proposed the sum of GBP 29,313.16 and FRF 9,194. 77. The applicant defended the amount claimed on account of, inter alia, the complexity of the issues involved and the speed with which the case had been treated by both the Commission and the Court. 78. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant GBP 35,000 plus any value-added tax that may be chargeable under this head, less the FRF 33,216 already paid in legal aid by the Council of Europe. B. Default interest 79. According to the information available to the Court, the statutory rate of interest applicable in the United Kingdom at the date of adoption of the present judgment is 8% per annum.
The Court applied Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, requesting the Government of the United Kingdom not to deport the applicant, who was HIV-positive and at an advanced stage of illness, because he would not have been able to receive medical treatment if he had been sent to his destination country. In this case the Court took account of the “very exceptional circumstances” and “compelling humanitarian considerations”: the applicant was critically ill and appeared to be close to death, could not be guaranteed any nursing or medical care in his country of origin and had no family there willing or able to care for him or provide him with even a basic level of food, shelter or social support.