Search
document

Document text Analytics

M.A.R. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28038/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45921

Document date: September 19, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

M.A.R. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 28038/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45921

Document date: September 19, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PLENARY

Application No. 28038/95

M.A.R

against

the United Kingdom

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 19 September 1997)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ......................... 2

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED ............................... 3

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention on Human Rights by M.A.R. against

the United Kingdom on 15 June 1995. It was registered on 27 July 1995

under file No. 28038/95.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by Jawaid

Luqmani, a solicitor practising in London. The respondent Government

were represented by their Agent, Ms. Susan McCrory, Foreign and

Commonwealth Office.

3. On 16 January 1997, further to an oral hearing, the Commission

declared the application admissible. It then proceeded to carry out its

task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the

parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement

of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined

in this Convention."

4. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 19 September 1997 adopted this Report

which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is

confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

5. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

E. BUSUTTIL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

J.-C. GEUS

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

Mrs. M. HION

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1954 and he is

currently resident in the United Kingdom, having been released from

detention in March 1997.

7. On 5 January 1982 the applicant arrived in London, claimed

political asylum and, after an initial refusal, was accorded refugee

status under the 1951 Geneva Convention on 15 March 1982. Subsequently,

the applicant was convicted of a number of drugs related offences (on

20 December 1983, 21 February 1985 and 27 February 1985).

8. Subsequently, UNHCR indicated that, should the applicant

re-offend, they would not support any further application for leave to

remain. While an application for an extension of leave to remain was

pending, the applicant was convicted on 9 June 1988 of being involved

in supplying heroin. He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and

recommended for deportation on completion of his sentence.

9. On 31 March 1993 the applicant was granted parole but was

detained pending a decision to deport him pursuant to section 3(5)(b)

of the Immigration Act 1971 rather than by implementing the court's

recommendation. On 23 August 1993 the Home Secretary issued a

deportation order. The applicant's appeals against this order were

rejected on 13 June 1994 by the Special Adjudicator, on 25 August 1994

by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and on 2 May 1995 by the Court of

Appeal. By facsimile dated 25 July 1995 the applicant was given his

removal directions to be effected on 27 July 1995.

10. The applicant was not deported on that date since, following the

applicant's request to the Commission pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules

of Procedure, the United Kingdom undertook not to deport the applicant

pending the Commission's fuller consideration of the matter.

11. The applicant complained that his deportation to Iran would

amount to a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Convention

because he ran a real risk of treatment contrary to those Articles if

deported in view of his political activities against the regime while

he was in Iran, his refugee status in the United Kingdom and his drugs

convictions (there being a rigorous anti-drugs campaign conducted in

Iran).

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

12. Following its decision on the admissibility of the application,

the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view

to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28

para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any

proposals they wished to make. In accordance with the usual practice,

the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the

parties to explore the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement.

13. By letter dated 2 April 1997 the Government outlined its

proposals for a friendly settlement of the matter (such proposals

involving the revocation of the deportation order and the granting of

indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom) in view of which

proposals the applicant had been released from detention on

11 March 1997. By letter dated 30 April 1997 the applicant submitted

counter proposals to which the Government responded by letter dated

25 June 1997. The Government's letter of 25 June 1997 outlined the

following proposals:

"i. The Deportation Order relating to the Applicant was revoked

on 25 April. The Applicant will be granted indefinite leave to

remain in the United Kingdom and is eligible to apply for a Home

Office travel document.

ii. The Government is not willing to pay compensation to the

Applicant as it considers that his detention was lawful.

iii.The Government is willing to pay the Applicant's reasonable

legal costs arising from this Application."

14. By letter dated 13 August 1997 the applicant confirmed that a

friendly settlement could be reached on the basis of the proposals set

out in the letter from the Government dated 25 June 1997.

15. At its session on 19 September 1997 the Commission found that the

parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It

further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1(b) of the

Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured

on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

16. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

to the Commission of the Commission

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant