14037/88
4 -
14038/88, Soering v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 19.1.89, paras. 94-99). It is only in exceptional circumstances that the removal of a person will give rise to an issue under Article 3 and the burden lies on the applicant to substantiate his fear that he will be exposed to treatment or punishment prohibited under that provision (see No. 8581/79, Dec. 6.3.80, D.R. 29 p. 48).
The Commission notes however that in the present case the applicant's fears of treatment contrary to Article 3 depend on a number of hypothetical factors, namely, that the applicant is convicted, that he is sentenced to more than eight years imprisonment, that his detention falls under the control of the Chinese authorities and that the proceedings against him are re-opened. The Commission also recalls that the Sino-British Joint Declaration provides for the same laws and policies to be carried over for 50 years and that a Sino-British liaison committee is to be set up to make provision for transitional problems.
The Commission finds in these circumstances that the applicant has failed to establish that he is faced with an imminent act of the respondent Government which might expose him to any real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
2.
The applicant also complains that on return to Hong Kong he may, on resumption of Chinese sovereignty, face violations of his rights under Article 7 para. 1 of the Convention, which provides:
"No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed."
The Commission may however only examine complaints directed against one of the States Parties to the Convention. The respondent Government could not in this case be held directly responsible under the Convention for the retrospective imposition of criminal liability. or retrospective increase in penalties allegedly provided for under Chinese law. The Commission also finds that the proposed extradition of the applicant to Hong Kong could not give rise to the responsibility of the respondent Government under Article 7 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary
C
Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER)
President of the Commission
Ea horn aard
(C.A. NØRGAARD)
?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.