What has the European Court ruled?
Seven judges of the European Court of Human Rights - one of whom is British - have blocked the deportation of cleric Abu Qatada to Jordan. He has been convicted there in his absence of terrorism offences. The UK has been attempting to remove him since 2005. He is currently being held in a special unit at Long Lartin jail in Worcestershire.
Who is Abu Qatada?
His real name is Omar Othman and he is a Palestinian-Jordanian Islamic scholar who was born in Bethlehem. He came to the UK in 1993 and is among a large group of Islamists who fled from the Middle East to London as they faced persecution.
Abu Qatada is an influential supporter of mujahideen causes. He is accused of threatening British national security by supporting terrorism, something he denies. He has never been charged with an offence in the UK, but has been held in detention and had his movements restricted by a control order because he was suspected of playing a key role in radicalisation. The government has been trying to deport him since 2005.
Why did the European court block the deportation?
The judges said that while they were satisfied that the preacher would not face ill-treatment if deported, he could not face a probable retrial in Jordan because the key evidence against him was obtained by torturing others. It said that sending him back to Jordan would legitimise that state's use of torture.
How important is this case?
This is the first time that the Strasbourg court has ruled that someone cannot be expelled because the torture of others would mean that they would be denied a fair trial.
Why did this case end up at the European Court?
The Court of Appeal in London originally blocked Abu Qatada's deportation on broadly the same lines as those now used by Europe. But in 2009 the then Law Lords overturned the Court of Appeal's decision and said that the deportation could go ahead.
The lords ruled that Abu Qatada's rights would be protected if he were deported. Crucially, they ruled that while evidence against him may have been extracted by torture of another suspect, they had to decide whether a trial based on that material could be fair. They concluded there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the Jordanian courts could not offer a fair trial.
Is this decision final?
Not quite. Both sides have three months to appeal against the ruling to the Grand Chamber of the court - its highest decision-making body. If nobody appeals, it then becomes final. The court has made clear that if the UK obtained an assurance from Jordan that evidence obtained by torture would not be used against Abu Qatada at trial, there would be nothing to stop his deportation.
What happens if he can't be deported?
At present he remains in detention. But if he is not facing a criminal charge, extradition proceedings or an attempt to deport, then he must be released from jail. The likely scenario is that his activities would be restricted by house arrest-style conditions.
Does this ruling mean the UK cannot deport any foreign terrorism suspects to regimes with questionable human rights records?
The government has signed deportation deals known as Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with four governments - Lebanon, Jordan, Ethiopia and Morocco. There is a further separate agreement with Algeria to look at deportations on a case-by-case basis.
Each of these deals is supposedly a guarantee by the relevant government to protect the human rights of anyone who is deported.
A deal with Libya, signed by Colonel Gaddafi, was thrown out by the courts. The European Court has now accepted that the Jordanian deal is sound. The deportation of at least 15 individuals relate to these deals.
No comments:
Post a Comment