- 5 ·
19319/92
Article 5 paras. 1 and 4, that his extradition is unlawful because of an alleged denial of an effective remedy whereby the lawfulness of his detention and extradition can be tested following the order of the Secretary of State to surrender him to Hong Kong. In this connection the Secretary of State has declined to give any undertaking to allow the applicant a few days in which to take advice as to the opportunity to challenge his eventual order surrendering the applicant to the Hong Kong authorities. There would be nothing, therefore, to prevent the applicant's immediate removal to Hong Kong, this being a matter left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. The possibility of immediate removal applies to persons to be extradited to a United Kingdom colony. In contrast, persons being extradited to foreign countries apparently receive 15 days' advance notice of removal. applicant contends that this notification difference constitutes discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 5. Finally the applicant contends that he has no effective remedies at his disposal under English law in relation to his Convention complaints, contrary to Article 13 of the Convention, to the extent that the provisions of Article 5 para. 4 and the terms of Article 5, taken as a whole, do not constitute a lex specialis in respect of these complaints.
THE LAW
1. The applicant first complains that his proposed extradition to Hong Kong is in breach of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention, in particular Article 5 para. 1 (f), because of an alleged absence of sufficient specialty protection.
The relevant part of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention provides as follows:
"1.
Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
f.
...
the lawful arrest or detention
of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition."
The Commission recalls the following findings it made in the applicant's second application, No. 15933/89:
"The Commission
notes the validity of the emergency, provisional warrant issued by the London Magistrate on 2 December 1985 and the validity of the Hong Kong warrant of 20 January 1986, which allowed the Secretary of State to authorise the Magistrate to proceed with the extradition committal proceedings against the applicant. It, therefore, finds no evidence to suggest that the applicant's detention in the United Kingdom since 6 December 1985 has not been in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 second sentence, or generally lawful within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (f) of the Convention, the applicant being a person against whom action has and continues to be taken with a view to his extradition."
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.