EIT katsoi ensimmäisen kerran, että karkotus toiseen maahan muodostaisi 6 artiklan loukkauksen

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tänään ensimmäistä kertaa katsonut, että valittajan karkotus rikkoisi potentiaalisesti niin räikeästi oikeudenmukaista oikeudenkäyntiä vastaanottajavaltiossa (Jordania), että valittajaa ei tämän vuoksi voida karkottaa.

Asiassa oli kyse siitä, että EIT:n mukaan oli olemassa varteenotettava riski siitä, että valittajaa vastaan käytettäisiin todisteina lausuntoja, jotka on saatu kiduttamalla. EIT katsoi, että tämänkaltaisen todistelun mahdollinenkin vastaanottaminen rikkoo niin räikeästi oikeudenmukaisen oikeudenkäynnin perusperittaatteita, että valittajan karkotus rikkoisi 6 artiklaa, eikä valittajaa siten voida karkottaa.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

Article 6
The European Court agreed with the English Court of Appeal that the use of evidence obtained by torture during a criminal trial would amount to a flagrant denial of justice. Torture and the use of torture evidence were banned under international law. Allowing a criminal court to rely on torture evidence would legitimise the torture of witnesses and suspects pre-trial. Moreover, torture evidence was unreliable, because a person being tortured would say anything to make it stop.

The Court found that torture was widespread in Jordan, as was the use of torture evidence by the Jordanian courts. The Court also found that, in relation to each of the two terrorist conspiracies charged against Mr Othman, the evidence of his involvement had been obtained by torturing one of his co-defendants. When those two co-defendants stood trial, the Jordanian courts had not taken any action in relation to their complaints of torture. The Court agreed with SIAC that there was a high probability that the incriminating evidence would be admitted at Mr Othman’s retrial and that it would be of considerable, perhaps decisive, importance.

In the absence of any assurance by Jordan that the torture evidence would not be used against Mr Othman, the Court therefore concluded that his deportation to Jordan to be retried would give rise to a flagrant denial of justice in violation of Article 6.

EIT totesi kidutuksella saadun todistusaineiston kategorisen hyödyntämiskiellon äärimmäisen selvästi:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers that the admission of torture evidence is manifestly contrary, not just to the provisions of Article 6, but to the most basic international standards of a fair trial. It would make the whole trial not only immoral and illegal, but also entirely unreliable in its outcome. It would, therefore, be a flagrant denial of justice if such evidence were admitted in a criminal trial. The Court does not exclude that similar considerations may apply in respect of evidence obtained by other forms of ill-treatment which fall short of torture. However, on the facts of the present case (see paragraphs 269–271 below), it is not necessary to decide this question.

Koko lehdistötiedote löytyy täältä: Othman (abu Qatada) v. the United Kingdom. Tiedotteessa myös linkki koko tuomioon.

Palaa otsikoihin