Search
document

Document text Analytics

S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 16401/90 • ECHR ID: 001-944

Document date: July 10, 1991

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

S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 16401/90 • ECHR ID: 001-944

Document date: July 10, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 16401/90

by S.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

10 July 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 3 April 1990

by S. against the United Kingdom and registered on 5 April

1990 under file No. 16401/90;

Having regard to:

- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure

of the Commission;

- the Commission's decision of 16 May 1990 to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government

and invite them to submit written observations on its

admissibility and merits;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government

on 18 October 1990;

- the information provided by the applicant's representatives

on 2 May 1991;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen of Kenyan origin who was

born in 1945 and is resident in London. He is represented before the

Commission by Messrs. Singh Karran and Co., Solicitors, Hounslow,

Middlesex.

He originally complained to the Commission about his

extradition on fraud charges to Kenya where he alleged he would

receive an unfair trial. He invoked Article 5 para. 1 (f) and Article

6 para. 1 of the Convention in particular, supplemented by claims

under Articles 3, 6 paras. 2 and 3 (c) and 14. He was extradited to

Kenya on 30 May 1990. According to the applicant's representatives he

then spent almost a year in prison without any effective hearing and

was released and allowed to return to the United Kingdom. It is not

clear on what basis he was released although he apparently suffered

considerable ill-health in prison and the trial date was adjourned

from time to time.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 3 April 1990 and registered

on 5 April 1990.

After a preliminary examination of the case by the Rapporteur,

the Commission considered the admissibility of the application on

16 May 1990. The Commission decided to request the parties'

observations on admissibility and merits, pursuant to Rule 42 para. 2

(b) of its Rules of Procedure (former version). It also refused the

applicant's request to indicate a stay of the applicant's extradition

as an interim measure pursuant to Rule 36 of the Rules.

The Government lodged their observations on 18 October 1990

after two extensions of the time-limit fixed for their submission.

The applicant did not submit any observations in reply.

On 2 May 1991 the applicant's representatives informed the

Commission of the developments in the applicant's case in Kenya, of

his release and his return to the United Kingdom. They stated that

although the applicant felt he had been the victim of a gross

injustice, he did not wish to pursue the proceedings before the

Commission any longer as they would no longer serve any useful purpose

and he wished to put the whole matter behind him.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The Commission notes that the applicant has been released from

prison in Kenya and has returned to live in the United Kingdom. He

wishes to put these matters behind him and, in effect, withdraws his

application to the Commission. In these circumstances, the Commission

concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue further his

petition, within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the

Convention. Moreover, it finds no reasons of a general character

affecting respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention,

which require the further examination of the case by virtue of Article

30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant