19319/92
- 6 -
In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant seeks to revive his earlier application with new arguments concerning a question of specialty protection, following an undertaking given by the Hong Kong authories on 26 April 1991 to respect the principle of specialty in the event of the applicant being extradited. The applicant submits that this undertaking will be inadequate when the Chinese take over Hong Kong in 1997. However the Commission refers to its findings in the applicant's other application, No. 14037/88, firstly that the applicant's claims depend on a number of hypothetical factors such as his conviction, the imposition of a sentence extending beyond 1997 and the re-opening of proceedings against the applicant by the Chinese authorities. Secondly the United Kingdom Government could not be held directly responsible under the Convention for future hypothetical acts of the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Commission therefore endorses the principle
the principle affirmed by the Divisional Court in the present case that the United Kingdom and Hong Kong Governments could not be expected to provide any more specialty protection than has already been offered.
The Commission concludes that the applicant's submissions in the present case do not cast doubt
doubt on its earlier finding that the applicant's detention in the United Kingdom complies with Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, the applicant being a person against whom action has and continues to be taken with a view to his extradition. It follows that this part of the case is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
2. The applicant next complains of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 5, because persons extradited to United Kingdom colonies have no right to receive prior warning of their extradition date, whereas persons extradited to other foreign countries receive 15 days' notice of their removal from the United Kingdom. However, the Commission doubts whether this notification matter relates to a question of lawful detention under Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention. The Secretary of State's decision would not be to continue the applicant's detention in the United Kingdom, but to
to end it by the execution of the extradition order, handing the applicant over to the Hong Kong authorities. Nevertheless, even assuming that this matter touches on issues relevant to Article 5, the Commission finds that the notification difference does not amount to discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Convention as it has an obvious reasonable and objective basis (cf. mutatis mutandis No. 9088/80, Dec. 6.3.82, D.R. 28 p. 160, at p. 163-164, point 2). There is a special link between the United Kingdom and its colonies which enables it exercise an influence on events in those places. It could not exercise such an influence over other foreign countries. It is thereby possible to rectify any failure to respect general extradition rules by the receiving colony. The need for advance warning of the execution of an extradition order is, therefore, not pressing. Accordingly the Commission considers that the United Kingdom may reasonably withhold notice of the extradition order from a fugitive offender being extradited to one of its colonies like Hong Kong, with whom it has such close links.
The Commission concludes that the present application does not disclose any evidence of discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 5. It follows that this aspect of the case is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.