TNAG-2387-FCO40-3469-Extradition-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-case-of-Lorrain-Esme-Os-1991 — Page 66

3

15933/89

14 -

(d)

to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him ..."

The Commission notes that in principle the United Kingdom Government would not incur any liability under the Convention for the acts of the Hong Kong Government. As the European Court of Human Rights held in its Soering judgment, Article 1 of the Convention cannot be read as justifying a general principle to the effect that a Contracting State may not surrender an individual unless satisfied that the conditions awaiting him in the country of destination are in full accord with each of the safeguards of the Convention. However, exceptionally, if a Contracting State decided to extradite a fugitive to a country where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the individual faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, that decision itself may raise an issue under Article 3. The Court also left open the possibility that, exceptionally, an issue might arise under Article 6 of the Convention "by an extradition decision in circumstances where the fugitive has suffered or risks suffering a flagrant denial of a fair trial in the requesting country" (Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, paras. 81-91 and paras. 112-113).

In the present case, even assuming that the responsibility of the United Kingdom could be incurred in respect of the applicant's claim under Article 6, the Commission finds that the facts of the application do not disclose a risk that the applicant will suffer a flagrant denial of a fair trial in Hong Kong. Accordingly, this aspect of the case must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

4.

Finally, the Commission has considered the applicant's references to Article 5 paras. 2 and 4 and Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant has alleged that he has not received sufficient, prompt information about the charges against him in Hong Kong, as required by Article 5 para. 2 of the Convention, thus inhibiting the effective exercise of his rights under Article 5 para. 4 to test the lawfulness of his detention in the United Kingdom. He raised Article 8 of the Convention in respect of the search of his home conducted by the police on his arrest in December 1985.

However, the Commission finds no evidence in the case-file to substantiate the applicant's claims that he has not been adequately informed of the charges against him in Hong Kong or that he has thereby been unable effectively to pursue his challenges to the lawfulness of his detention through the habeas corpus proceedings. Moreover the application discloses no indication that the search of the applicant's home was not a justified interference with his right to respect for the home for the prevention of crime. It follows that these aspects of the case must similarly be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission

Raymond-

. RAYMOND)

President of the Commission

&& Narmaand е

(C.A. NØRGAARD)