EFTA00031733.pdf

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS COUR EUROPEENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME FOURTH SECTION CASE OF BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 24027/07, 11949/08, 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 10 April 2012 FINAL 24/09/2012 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. .a4 EFTA00031733 EFTA00031734 BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT In the case of Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Lech Garlicki, President, David Th6r Bjorgvinsson, Nicolas Bratza, Paivi Hirvelg, George Nicolaou, Ledi Bianku, Nebojga Vuoinie, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 20 March 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in five applications (nos. 24027/07, 11949/08 36742/08, 66911/09 and 67354/09) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"). 2. The first application was lodged on 10 June 2007 by two British nationals, Mr Babar Ahmad ("the first applicant") and Mr Haroon Rashid Aswat ("the second applicant"). They were both born in 1974. The second application was lodged on 5 March 2008 by Mr Syed Tahla Ahsan ("the third applicant"), who is also a British national. He was born in 1979. The third application was lodged on I August 2008 by Mr Mustafa Kamal Mustafa, known more commonly as Abu Hamza ("the fourth applicant"). He is a British national, who was born in 1958. The fourth application was lodged on 21 December 2009 by Mr Adel Abdul Bary ("the fifth applicant"). He is an Egyptian national who was born in 1960. The fifth application was lodged on 22 December 2009 by Mr Khaled Al-Fawwaz ("the sixth applicant"). He is a Saudi Arabian national who was born in 1962. 3. The first, second, third and fifth applicants were represented by Ms G. Peirce, a lawyer practising in London with Birnberg Peirce & Partners, assisted by Mr B. Cooper, counsel. The fourth applicant was represented by Ms M. Arani, a lawyer practising in Middlesex, assisted by Mr A. Jones QC and Mr B. Brandon, counsel. The sixth applicant was represented by Mr A. Raja, a lawyer practising in London with Quist EFTA00031735 2 BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT Solicitors, assisted by Mr J. Jones, counsel. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 4. The applicants, who are the subject of extradition requests made by the United States of America, alleged in particular that, if extradited and convicted in the United States, they would be at real risk of ill-treatment either as a result of conditions of detention at ADX Florence (which would be made worse by the imposition of "special administrative measures") or by the length of their possible sentences. 5. On 6 July 2010 the Court delivered its admissibility decision in respect of the first four applicants. It declared admissible the first, second and third applicants' complaints concerning detention at ADX Florence and the imposition of special administrative measures post-trial. It declared the fourth applicant's complaint in respect of ADX Florence inadmissible, finding that, as a result of his medical conditions (see paragraph 37 below), there was no real risk of his spending anything more than a short period of time at ADX Florence. The Court also declared admissible all four applicants' complaints concerning the length of their possible sentences. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the applicants' complaints. Finally, the Court decided to continue to indicate to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court that it was desirable in the interests of the proper conduct of the proceedings that the applicants should not be extradited until further notice. 6. On 3 September 2010, the President of the Chamber decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, that notice of the fifth and sixth applicants' cases should be given to the Government of the United Kingdom. It was further decided that the Rule 39 indications made in respect of these applicants should also remain in place until further notice. 7. Further to the Court's admissibility decision of 6 July 2010 and the President's decision of 3 September 2010, all six applicants and the Government filed observations (Rules 54 § 2 (b) and 59 § I). In addition, third-party comments were received from the non-governmental organisations the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Litigation Project at Yale Law School, Interights and Reprieve, which had been given leave by the President of the Chamber to intervene in the written procedure (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 2). The parties replied to those comments (Rule 44 § 5). EFTA00031736 BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT 3 THE FACTS I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES A. The United States indictments 8. The applicants have been indicted on various charges of terrorism in the United States of America. They are the subject of three separate sets of criminal proceedings in the United States federal courts. The first set concerns the first applicant, Mr Ahmad, and the third applicant, Mr Ahsan. The second set of proceedings concerns the second applicant, Mr Aswat, and the fourth applicant, Abu Hamza. The third set of proceedings concerns the fifth applicant, Mr Bary, and the sixth applicant, Mr Al Fawwaz. 9. The details of each indictment are set out below. On the basis of each indictment, the United States Government requested each applicant's extradition from the United Kingdom. Each applicant then contested his proposed extradition in separate proceedings in the English courts. I. The indictment concerning the first and third applicants 10. The indictment against the first applicant was returned by a Federal Grand Jury sitting in Connecticut on 6 October 2004. It alleges the commission of four felonies between 1997 and August 2004: conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing material support to terrorists; conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country; and money laundering. On 28 June 2006, a similar indictment was returned against the third applicant, save that the charge of money laundering was not included. For both indictments, the material support is alleged to have been provided through a series of websites, one of whose servers was based in Connecticut. The charge of conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim or injure persons or damage property in a foreign country is based on two allegations: first, that the websites exhorted Muslims to travel to Chechnya and Afghanistan to defend those places; and second, that classified US Navy plans relating to a US naval battle group operating in the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf had been sent to the website. The plans are alleged to have discussed the battle group's vulnerability to terrorist attack. 2. The indictment concerning the second and fourth applicants 11. The indictment against the fourth applicant was returned on 19 April 2004 by a Federal Grand Jury sitting in the Southern District of EFTA00031737 4 BABAR AHMAD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT New York. It charges him with eleven different counts of criminal conduct. These cover three sets of facts. 12. The first group of charges relates to the taking of sixteen hostages in Yemen in December 1998, four of whom died during a rescue mission conducted by Yemeni forces. The indictment charges the fourth applicant with conspiracy to take