These claims have been extremely controversial, particularly since diplomatic assurances are not legally binding; there is no recourse for the individual against the state that has given the assurance in the event of its breach (unless some kind of legitimate expectation claim could be successfully constructed, which seems somewhat unlikely) â€“ as diplomatic tools they are enforced (or not) through diplomatic channels. However, diplomatic assurances are not always insufficient to meet the receiving stateâ€™s obligations: if the assurance covers the prohibited activities, relates to a situation over which the assuring state has control, and comes from a reliable source then arguably the receiving state can rely on it. (For more on this see, e.g., this piece originally published in the Irish Law Times). One of the primary questions to arise since 2001, however, is whether the suspected involvement of the individual concerned in terrorist activity in any way reduces a stateâ€™s positive obligations under Article 3.
This question was directly addressed by the European Court of Human Rights in last weekâ€™s judgment in Saadi v Italy (judgment here). The case concerned a Tunisian citizen whom Italy wished to return to Tunisia but who claimed that he was likely to be subjected to behaviour violating Article 3 on his return and therefore that Italy had an obligation of non-refoulement towards him. The Italian government had received an assurance from Tunisia that Tunisian law guaranteed a fair trial and prisoners rights and that Saadi would be treated in strict conformity with these national laws. Pursuant to that assurance Italy claimed compliance with its Article 3 obligations; Saadi claimed that the assurance did not satisfy Article 3.
Although the Court accepted the grave difficulties that contemporary terrorism poses to states, it rejected the argument offered by the United Kingdom, which was a third party intervener to the proceeding, that in relation to suspected terrorists the court ought to weigh the community interest against the risk of violatory conduct perpetrated by a third party state (in this case, Tunisia). According to the Court, at paragraph 138:
Since protection against the treatment prohibited by Article 3 is absolute, that provision imposes an obligation not to extradite or expel any person who, in the receiving country, would run the real risk of being subjected to such treatment. As the Court has repeatedly held, there can be no derogation from that rule (see the case-law cited in paragraph 130 above). It must therefore reaffirm the principle stated in the Chahal judgment (cited above, Â§ 81) that it is not possible to weigh the risk of ill-treatment against the reasons put forward for the expulsion in order to determine whether the responsibility of a State is engaged under Article 3, even where such treatment is inflicted by another State. In that connection, the conduct of the person concerned, however undesirable or dangerous, cannot be taken into account.
And at paragraph 140:
With regard to the second branch of the United Kingdom Government’s arguments, to the effect that where an applicant presents a threat to national security, stronger evidence must be adduced to prove that there is a risk of ill-treatment (see paragraph 122 above), the Court observes that such an approach is not compatible with the absolute nature of the protection afforded by Article 3 either. It amounts to asserting that, in the absence of evidence meeting a higher standard, protection of national security justifies accepting more readily a risk of ill-treatment for the individual. The Court therefore sees no reason to modify the relevant standard of proof, as suggested by the third-party intervener, by requiring in cases like the present that it be proved that subjection to ill-treatment is â€œmore likely than notâ€. On the contrary, it reaffirms that for a planned forcible expulsion to be in breach of the Convention it is necessary â€“ and sufficient â€“ for substantial grounds to have been sown for believing that there is a real risk that the person concerned will be subjected i the receiving country to treatment prohibited by Article 3.
The Court accepted that diplomatic assurances might be sufficient in some cases to satisfy a stateâ€™s Article 3 obligations, but this was not the case here given the strong evidence of widespread torture and ill-treatment in Tunisian detention facilities. Thus Saadi could not be deported; any deportation would violate Article 3.