Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19801209-901280
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 20:30:23+00:00
Document Index: 9752427

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 23", "l'article 25", "l'article 7", "l'article 8", "l'article 3", "l'article 5", "l'article 8", "l'article 3", "l'article 27", "l'article 5", "l'article 27", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la ConventionNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9012/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-12-09;9012.80 Analyses : (Art. 41) PREJUDICE MORALParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9012/80 X . v/SWITZERLAND
X . c/SUISS E DECISION of 9 December 1980 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 9 dÃ©cembre 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 3 of the Convention : The extradition of an individual may, under certain exceptional circumstances, be contrary to the Convention and in particular to article 3, when there are serious reason to believe that the individual concerned wi!l be subjected to treatment prohibited bv this provision in the country to which he is being sent . In the present case, examination of the precautionary measures taken by the extraditing State and the undertakings by the requiring State .
Article 5, paragraph 1(i) of the Convention : Fxantination of the lawfulness under domestic law of a detention with a view to extradition, in particular the arrest and the detention preceding the fornta( request for extradition . Article 8 of the Convention : Examittation of grounds which led the authorities to execute a decision to extradite without the person to be extradited being able to contact his wife.
Article 3 de la Convention : L'extradition d'un individu peut, dans certaines circonstances exceptionne(les, se rÃ©vÃ©ler contraire Ã !a Convention et notamtnent Ã sot: article J, lorsqu'il y a des raisons sÃ©rieuses de croire que cet btdividu sera soumis, dans l'Etat vers lequel il doit Ãªtre dirigÃ©, Ã des traitements prohibÃ©s par cet article . En l'espÃ¨ce, examen des prÃ©cautions prises par l'Etat extradaru et des engagernents pris par l'Etat demandant l'extradition . Artlcle 5, paragraphe 1 lltt . f), de la Convention : Examen de la rÃ©gularitÃ©, en droit interne, d'une dÃ©tention en vue d'extradition, notamment de l'arrestation et de la dÃ©tention prÃ©cÃ©dant la demande forme!le d'exvadition .
Article 8 de la Convention : Examen des rnotijs qui ont conduit les autoritÃ©s Ã exÃ©cuter une dÃ©cision d'extradition sans que l'extradÃ© puisse reprendre contact avec son Ã©pouse.
(F-nglish : see p . 213 )
Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant indien, nÃ© en 1934 Ã Colombo (Sri Lanka) . Depuis quelques annÃ©es, il Ã©tait Ã©tabli comme commerÃ§ant dans l'Emirat de Dubai (Emirats Arabes Unis) . Il est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par Me Michel Halperin, avocat au barreau de GenÃ¨ve . Le 29 septembre 1978, le'requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ© Ã GenÃ¨ve par la police cantonale, soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir commis d'importantes escroqueries Ã l'Ã©tranger . A la demande de l'autoritÃ© fÃ©dÃ©rale il a Ã©tÃ© mis en dÃ©tention extraditionnelle par les autoritÃ©s genevoises . Le 3 octobre 1978, la police de l'Emirat .de Dubai Ã©crivant au consulat de Suisse Ã Dubai a demandÃ© l'arrestation du requÃ©rant . Le mÃªme jour, la police de l'Emirat de Dubai a envoyÃ© un telex dans le mÃªme sens Ã l'Interpol suisse . Un autre telex de la mÃªme date de la police de l'Emirat de Dubai Ã l'Interpol suisse a prÃ©cisÃ© que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait recherchÃ© pour rÃ©pondre des accusations d'escroquerie . Le 4 octobre 1978, l'Interpol d'Abou-Dhabi se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã un telex de l'Interpol suisse du 30 septembre 1978 a demandÃ© Ã celle-ci de maintenir le requÃ©rant en dÃ©tention et annoncÃ© l'envoi d'une demande formelle d'extradition . Le mÃªme jour, le requÃ©rant fit l'objet d'un mandat d'arrÃªt extraditionnel dÃ©livrÃ© par la Division fÃ©dÃ©rale de Police . Le 20 octobre 1978, les Emirats Arabes Unis ont demandÃ© aux autoritÃ©s suisses l'extradition du requÃ©rant, en joignant Ã leur requÃªte diverses piÃ¨ces . notamment deux mandats d'arrÃªt du tribunal de Dubai des 3 et 5 octobre 1978, l'un pour escroquerie, l'autre pour faux dans les titres, sans prÃ©ciser toutefois les infractions reprochÃ©es . (Ce dossier fut complÃ©tÃ© le 1e1 dÃ©cembre 1978 .) Le 27 octobre 1978, ils ont requis le transfert en leur faveur de tous les fonds du requÃ©rant se trouvant en Suisse . A la demande de l'autoritÃ© fÃ©dÃ©rale, les avoirs que le requÃ©rant et sa femme avaient dÃ©posÃ©s dans des banques suisses ont Ã©tÃ© sÃ©questrÃ©s . Le 16 dÃ©cembre 1978, le tribunal de Dubai a dÃ©cernÃ© contre le requÃ©ran t un mandat d'arrÃªt international motivÃ© . Il lui Ã©tait reprochÃ© d'avoir, au moyen de faux documents ( Â« connaissements maritimes +), obtenu la GbÃ©ration en sa faveur d'un crÃ©dit documentaire ouvert Ã la demande d'un acheteur sur la vente de l 000 tonnes de sucre pour le prix de 190 000 dollars, payable par accrÃ©ditif documentaire . Il est soupÃ§onnÃ© de n'avoir jamais expÃ©diÃ© ou fait expÃ©dier la marchandise . Cela lui aurait Ã©tÃ© facilitÃ© par le fait qu'il Ã©tai t
propriÃ©taire Ã la fois d'une maison de commerce et d'une entreprise de transports maritimes . Le 21 janvier 1979, le m@me tribunal a dÃ©cernÃ© un deuxiÃ¨me mandat d'arrÃªt international motivÃ©, prÃ©cisant que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait encore prÃ©venu de nombreuses autres escroqueries, commises selon le mÃªme procÃ©dÃ© . Le montant total des escroqueries porterait sur un montant de plus de deux millions de dollars . Ce mandat d'arrÃ©t fut adressÃ© Ã la Division fÃ©dÃ©rale de police le 31 janvier 1979 . Le 4 janvier 1979, le requÃ©rant fut interrogÃ© par la police genevoise sur la base des piÃ¨ces alors reÃ§ues . A la suite du second mandat d'arrÃ¨t motivÃ©, datÃ© du 21 janvier 1979, il fut interrogÃ© Ã nouveau le 6 fÃ©vrier 1979 . 11 a contestÃ© le bien-fondÃ© des accusations portÃ©es contre lui et dÃ©clarÃ© s'opposer Ã son extradition . Il a fait valoir que les ressortissants asiatiques, comme lui, faisaient l'objet de la part des autoritÃ©s administratives et judiciaires de Dubai, d'une discrimination raciale . Il a manifestÃ©, en outre, ses craintes d'Ãªtre privÃ© des garanties d'un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable et d'Ãªtre soumis Ã des traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants . Le l Â« juin 1979, le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire en raison notamment de la dÃ©gradation de son Ã©tat de santÃ© . Le 15 juin 1979, l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police a ordonnÃ© sa mise en libertÃ© provisoire, sous certaines conditions, notamment : le versement d'une caution de 30 000 F .S ., le dÃ©pÃ´t de toutes piÃ¨ces d'identitÃ© auprÃ¨s de la police, l'obligation de rester sur le territoire genevois et de s'annoncer Ã la police deux fois par semaine . L'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police s'est rÃ©servÃ© en cas de non-observation des conditions susmentionnÃ©es d'ordonner Ã nouveau la mise en dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant . Le 8 janvier 1980, l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police a rÃ©voquÃ© la dÃ©cision prÃ©citÃ©e et ordonnÃ© que le requÃ©rant soit Ã nouveau arrÃªtÃ© et placÃ© en dÃ©tention extraditionnelle . A l'appui de sa dÃ©cision, il faisait Ã©tat de la prise de position du ministÃ¨re public de la ConfÃ©dÃ©ration, favorable Ã l'extradition, et de la transmission imminente du dossier au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral pour dÃ©cision . Il a considÃ©rÃ© . en outre, que cette dÃ©cision s'imposait en raison d'un risque de fuite pour l'Ã©tranger, vu les deux lettres des 19 et 20 novembre 1979 adressÃ©es Ã l'Off-ice fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police dans lesquelles le requÃ©rant se plaignait des lenteurs de la procÃ©dure et demandait l'autorisation de se rendre Ã Dublin afin de voir sa mÃ¨re qui Ã©tait malade . Enfin, l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police a justifiÃ© sa dÃ©cision par l'amÃ©lioration de l'Ã©tat de santÃ© du requÃ©rant . Contre cette dÃ©cision, le requÃ©rant a formÃ© le 15 janvier 1980 un recour s auprÃ¨s du DÃ©partement fÃ©dÃ©ral de justice et police tendant Ã l'annulation de ladite dÃ©cision et Ã sa mise en libertÃ© immÃ©diate . Ce recours fut transmis par le DÃ©partement fÃ©dÃ©ral de justice et police au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral pour des raisons de compÃ©tence et le 20 janvier 1 980, tou t
le dossier lui fut envoyÃ©, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 23 de la Loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'extradition aux Etats Ã©trangers*, afin qu'il dÃ©cide si l'extradition doit Ãªtre accordÃ©e ou non . Pour le cas oÃ¹ le DÃ©partement fÃ©dÃ©ral de justice et police ne serait pas compÃ©tent pour statuer sur le recours du 15 janvier 1980, le requÃ©rant a formÃ© le 7 fÃ©vrier 1980 une demande de mise en libertÃ© provisoire auprÃ¨s de ce tribunal, se fondant sur l'article 25, alinÃ©a 2 de la Loi prÃ©citÃ©e" . Le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a rejetÃ© le 8 fÃ©vrier 1980 le recours du 15 janvier 1980 et la demande de mise en libertÃ© provisoire du 7 fÃ©vrier 1980 . II a estimÃ© que l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police avait correctement appliquÃ© la loi en estimant que les circonstances faisaient craindre la fuite du requÃ©rant, au point de justifier sa rÃ©incarcÃ©ration . Il a relevÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard que le risque de fuite Ã©tait plus important, vu la gravitÃ© des infractions dont il Ã©tait accusÃ©, la proximitÃ© d'une dÃ©cision au fond et le prÃ©avis du ministÃ¨re public de la ConfÃ©dÃ©ration favorable Ã l'extradition . Le 22 fÃ©vrier 1980, le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a rejetÃ© l'opposition du requÃ©rant et autorisÃ© son extradition Ã l'Emirat de Dubai . Il a, toutefois, soumis l'extradition aux treize conditions suivantes : - 1 . la situation de l'extradÃ© ne pourra Ãªtre aggravÃ©e (lors de sa dÃ©tention, de l'instruction et du jugement) en raison de considÃ©rations de race, de religion, de nationalitÃ© ou d'opinion politique (art . 3 Convention europÃ©enne d'extradition) , 2. l'Etat requÃ©rant accordera Ã l'extradÃ© les droits reconnus aux personnes par la Convention europÃ©enne de Sauvegarde des Droits de l'Homme et des LibertÃ©s fondamentales, du 4 novembre 1950 . 3 . l'extradÃ© ne pourra encourir aucunepeine corporelle (art . 5 LExtr .), 4 . l'extradÃ© ne pourra Ãªtre ni poursuivi ni puni pour les infractions qu'il pourrait avoir commises antÃ©rieurement Ã la demande, autres que celles qui ont donnÃ© lieu Ã extradition, au sens de l'article 7 LExtr . ,
â¢ L'article 23 L. Exlr . dispose que : . I . Si, au contraire l'individu arrÃ©tÃ© soulÃ¨ve une objection fondÃ©e sur la prÃ©sente loi, sur le traitÃ© ou sur une dÃ©claration de rÃ©ciprocitÃ©, le Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral transmettra le dossier au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, en avisant le Gouvernement du canton intÃ©ressÃ© .
2 . ( . . .) . . L'article 25 L . Extr. stipule que : - 1 . La mise en libertÃ© provisoire pourra Ãªtre accordÃ©e, si cette mesure parait @tre exigÃ©e par les circonstances . 2 . Elle est autorisÃ©e par le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral, s'il est saisi de la cause, sinon par le Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral . -
5 . l'Etat requÃ©rant ne pourra extrader l'extradÃ© Ã un Etat tiers, si ce n'est aux conditions de l'article 8 LExtr . , 6 . l'extradÃ© ne sera pas jugÃ© par un tribunal d'exception (art . 9 LExtr .), 7 . l'extradÃ© ne sera ni poursuivi ni puni pour un crime politique non plus que pour son motif ou son but politique (art . 10 LExtr .) . 8 . si l'extradÃ© a commis en outre une infraction de nature fiscale ou militaire, cette contravention ne pourra ni entraÃ®ner une condamnation ni constituer une circonstance aggravante (art . 11 LExtr .) , 9 . l'Etat requÃ©rant s'en tiendra aux indications figurant dans la lettre du Consulat gÃ©nÃ©ral des Emirats arabes unis Ã GenÃ¨ve, du 18 avril 1979 , 10 . l'extradÃ©, s'il doit Ãªtre dÃ©tenu, le sera dans la prison principale (nouvelle) de Dubai (Ã l'exclusion de l'ancienne prison) , 11 . l'extradÃ© ne pourra encourir aucun sÃ©vice ni traitement dÃ©gradant ou nuisible Ã sa santÃ© , 12 . l'extradÃ© recevra les soins mÃ©dicaux nÃ©cessaires et, si son Ã©tat de santÃ© le requiert, il devra recevoir les soins appropriÃ©s et au besoin Ãªtre reÃ§u dans un Ã©tablissement appropriÃ©, â¢ 13 . la reprÃ©sentation suisse pourra s'enquÃ©rir de l'Ã©tat de la procÃ©dure et assister aux Ã©ventuels dÃ©bats judiciaires ; elle recevra un exemplaire de la dÃ©cision mettant fin Ã la procÃ©dure judiciaire ; elle pourra rendre visite sans contrÃ´le Ã l'extradÃ© ; celui-ci pourra en tout temps demander une visite de la reprÃ©sentation suisse . â¢
Le 28 fÃ©vrier 1980, le conseil du requÃ©rant a informÃ© l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de la police qu'il avait l'intention de saisir la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . Il a demandÃ© Ã celui-ci de suspendre l'exÃ©cution de l'extradition du requÃ©rant . jusqu'Ã ce que la Commission examine la requÃªte . Le 23 mars 1980, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© extradÃ© par les autoritÃ©s suisses Ã l'Emirat de Dubai . Le 26 mars 1980, le conseil du requÃ©rant s'est plaint au DÃ©partement fÃ©dÃ©ral de justice que son client avaitÃ©tÃ© extradÃ©, alors mÃªme qu'il attendait les motifs de l'arrÃªt du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral du 22 fÃ©vrier 1980 pour dÃ©poser une requÃªte Ã la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme . Il a protestÃ©, en outre, que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© extradÃ© un dimanche, Ã l'insu de sa femme et de son avocat . Le 3 avril 1980, le DÃ©partement fÃ©dÃ©ral de justice a rÃ©pondu Ã cette lettre, faisant noter, en premier lieu, que les arrÃªts du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral avaient force de chose jugÃ©e et que, par consÃ©quent, les extraditions Ã©taient exÃ©cutÃ©es dans les heures suivantes . En l'espÃ¨ce, les autoritÃ©s avaient uniquement attendu :- que l'Etat de Dubai ait donnÃ© des garanties quant a u
respect des conditions Ã©numÃ©rÃ©es dans l'arrÃªt du T ri bunal fÃ©dÃ©ral accordant l'extradition ; - que l'Ã©tat de santÃ© du requÃ©rant l'ait permis . Or, le 17 man 1980 le consulat gÃ©nÃ©ral des Emirats Arabes Unis Ã GenÃ¨ve a fait parvenir aux auto ritÃ©s suisses le document suivant : . Le Gouvernement de l'Emirat de Dubai assure au Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse qu'il accepte sans exception ni rÃ©se rve toutes les charges et conditions Ã©numÃ©rÃ©es sous lettres a) Ã m) du dispositif du jugement du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse (IIâ¢ Cour de droit public) rendu le 22 fÃ©vrier 1980 et relatif Ã l'extradition de X . . . D'autre pa rt , selon un certificat mÃ©dical de l'lnstitut de mÃ©decine lÃ©gale de l'Unive rs itÃ© de GenÃ¨ve du 19 mars 1980, le requÃ©rant . devait Ãªtre maintenu en milieu hospitalier et n'Ã©tait transport able que d'un hÃ´pital Ã un autre, en milieu protÃ©gÃ© et sous surveillance sanitaire . . Il fut ainsi accompagnÃ©, Ion de son transport, d'un mÃ©decin et d'un infirmier de Dubai . A leur retour en Suisse, les inspecteurs genevois qui ont escortÃ© le requÃ©rant ont fait savoir au DÃ©partement fÃ©dÃ©ral de justice qu'il Ã¢vait cessÃ© la grÃ¨ve de la faim qu'il poursuivait depuis huit semaines, dÃ¨s l'envol de l'avion . HospitalisÃ© Ã Dubai il semble que son Ã©tat de santÃ© fait d'heureux progrÃ¨s . Quant au fait que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© extradÃ© un dimanche sans avoir vu son Ã©pouse, le DÃ©pa rtement fÃ©dÃ©ral a soulignÃ© que cette mesure Ã©tait destinÃ©e Ã Ã©viter tout incident . Enfin, quant au fait d'avoir l'inten tion de saisir la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, il a fait remarquer qu'un tel recours n'avait pas d'effet suspensif et que, de toute maniÃ¨re, celle-ci n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© saisie au moment de l'extradition . Le 27 juin 1980, l'avocat du requÃ©rant a fait pa rv enir au SecrÃ©tariat de la Commission copie d'une lettre que ce dernier avait adressÃ©e le 14 juin 1980 au directeur de la p ri son de Dubai . Dans cette lettre, le requÃ©rant s'est plaint essentiellement de la dÃ©grada tion de son Ã©tat de santÃ© et de l'impossibilitÃ© de contacter par tÃ©lÃ©phone sa femme et ses enfants . Le 27 octobre 1980, le conseil du requÃ©rant a transmis au SecrÃ©tariat un Ã©change de corre spondance entre lui et le DÃ©pa rtement fÃ©dÃ©ral des Affaires EtrangÃ¨res. Ce demier l'informait, le 21 octobre 1980, des conditions de l'hospitalisation du requÃ©rant et de l'Ã©tat de la procÃ©dure . En rÃ©ponse, le conseil du requÃ©rant s'est plaint que, selon ses informations, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait dÃ©tenu en cellule et souvent en cellule d'isolement, et que les procÃ©dures ayant justifiÃ© l'extradition n'aient fait l'objet d'aucun commencement d'instruction . II a admis, par contre, que les conditions de l'hospitalisa ti on Ã© taient convenables . Griefs Ixs griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint que son extradition vers l'Etat de Dubai constitue un traitement inhumain et dÃ©gradant car les ressortissants asiatiques fon t
l'objet de la part des autoritÃ©s de cet Etat d'une disc ri mination raciale et de mauvais traitements . Il souligne par ailleurs, qu'Ã©tant malade, son extradition n'aurait pas dÃ» s'effectuer. Il allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, en deuxiÃ¨me lieu, de sa dÃ©tention Ã deux rep ri ses en Suisse en vue d'ex tr adition . Quant Ã la premiÃ¨re dÃ©tention, il souligne que celle-ci a eu lieu le 29 septembre 1978, quatre jours avant qu'inte rv ienne un mandat d'arrÃªt extraditionnel . Mis en libe rt Ã© le 15 juin 1979 et dÃ©tenu de nouveau le 8 janvier 1980, il considÃ¨re cette deuxiÃ¨me dÃ©tention injustifiÃ©e et invoque l'article 5, paragraphe 1(f) de la Convention . 3 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, enfin, d'avoir Ã©tÃ© extradÃ© un dimanche sans avoir pu voir sa femme . Il allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 8 de la Convention .
EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue qu'en l'extradant aux Emirats Arabes Unis (Emirat de Dubai), les autoritÃ©s suisses l'ont exposÃ© Ã des traitements inhumains et dÃ©gradants, car les ressortissants asiatiques, comme lui, font l'objet dans cet Etat de discrimination raciale et de mauvais traitements . Il soutient, en outre, que son Ã©tat de santÃ© ne pouvait pas supporter l'extradition et allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . La Commission rappelle, en premier lieu, que selon sa jurisprudence constante, aucun droit Ã ne pas Ãªtre extradÃ© ne figu re , comme tel, au nombre des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention (cf . les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des re quÃªtes nÂ° 2143/64, Annuaire 7, p . 329 ; nÂ° 1983/63, Annuai re 8, p . 261 et nÂ° 7317/75, D .R . 6, p . 141, 152) . Toutefois, ainsi que la Commission l'a dÃ©jÃ constatÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises , l'extradition d'un dÃ©tenu peut, dans certains cas exceptionnels, poser un problÃ¨me dÃ©licat sur le terrain de la Convention, en particulier de son a rt icle 3, lorsqu'il existe des raisons sÃ© ri euses de craindre qu'une telle mesure puisse exposer cet individu, dans l'Etat vers lequel il sera dirigÃ©, Ã des traitements prohibÃ©s par ledit a rticle (cf . les dÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des re quÃªtes nÂ° 1802/62, Annuaire 6, p . 481 et n' 5012/72, Recueil de dÃ©cisions 40, p . 62) . Aux termes de l'a rt icle 3 de la Convention :- Nul ne peut Ãªtre soumis Ã la tort ure ni Ã des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants â¢ . En l'espÃ¨ce, le requÃ©rant n'a pas montrÃ© qu'en l'extradant aux Emirats Arabes Unis ( Emirat de Dubai), les auto ri tÃ©s suisses l'avaientexposÃ© au danger qu'il prÃ©tendait cou ri r. En effet, le T ri bunal fÃ©dÃ©ral n'a accordÃ© son extradition que moyennant treize conditions soigneusement libellÃ©es (v . faits) . De plus, l'extradition a eu lieu seulement aprÃ¨s que les autoritÃ©s de l'Emirat de Dubai s'Ã©taient engagÃ©es Ã accepter sans exception ni rÃ©serv e toutes ces
conditions. Par ailleurs, en ce qui concerne l'Ã©tat de santÃ© du requÃ©rant, celui-ci fut accompagnÃ© dans l'avion, lors de son transport, par un mÃ©decin et un infirmier. Enfin, il ressort d'une lettre datÃ©e du 14 juin 1980 que le requÃ©rant a adressÃ©e au directeur de la prison de Dubai, qu'il ne faisait pas l'objet de tortures ou de traitements inhumains de la part des autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires . Il ne s'est plaint que d'une dÃ©gradation de son Ã©tat de santÃ© en gÃ©nÃ©ral, et de ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã tÃ©lÃ©phoner Ã sa femme et ses enfants . Par ailleurs . la derniÃ¨re lettre envoyÃ©e par le conseil du requÃ©rant, datÃ©e du 27 octobre 1980 . ne dÃ©montre pas que les conditions de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant soient mauvaises .
Dans ces circonstances, la Commission estime que l'examen de ce grief ne permet de dÃ©celer aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention, en particulier par son article 3 . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ© e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint, en deuxiÃ¨me lieu, de la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention en Suisse en vue d'extradition . Il fait valoir qu'il a Ã©tÃ© . arrÃªtÃ© par la police genevoise le 29 septembre 1978 alors que son extradition ne fut demandÃ©e par l'Entirat de Dubai que le 3 octobre 1978 . II se plaint, en outre, que l'Office fÃ©dÃ©ral de police ait ordonnÃ© sa dÃ©tention une deuxiÃ¨me fois, le 8 janvier 1980 . Il allÃ¨gue la violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 de la Convention qui garantit le droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ© et Ã©numÃ¨re de faÃ§on limitative les cas dans lesquels une personne peut Ãªtre privÃ©e de sa libertÃ© pourvu que soient respectÃ©es les voies lÃ©gales . La Commission souligne tout d'abord que la question de savoir si la dÃ©tention a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©guliÃ¨re doit s'apprÃ©cier essentiellement Ã l'Ã©gard du droit suisse (v . requÃªte nÂ° 7256/75 c/Belgique, D .R . 8, p . 162) . Elle constate que les artiÃ©les 17 et 18 de la Loi fÃ©dÃ©rale sur l'extradition aux Etats Ã©trangers autorisent l'autoritÃ© administrative fÃ©dÃ©rale compÃ©tente Ã faire arrÃªter et dÃ©tenir les personnes qui font l'objet d'une demande d'arrestation provisoire dans le cadre d'une demande d'extradition . L'article 20 de la mÃªme loi stipule que â¢ dans les cas graves et s'il y a pÃ©ril en la demeure, les organes de la police cantonale pourront, de leur propre chef, procÃ©der Ã l'arrestation d'un individu dont' une police Ã©trangÃ¨re a publiÃ© le signalement . . Certes, en l'espÃ¨ce . la demande d'extradition n'est datÃ©e que du 3 octobre 1978 . Toutefois, il ressort des piÃ¨ces versÃ©es au dossier que, au moins depuis le 30 septembre 1978, la police de l'Emirat de Dubai et la police suisse Ã©taient en relation au sujet de l'extradition du requÃ©rant . Depuis cette date, celui-ci fut bien dÃ©tenu par dÃ©cision de la Division fÃ©dÃ©rale de police agissant sous l'autoritÃ© du Conseil fÃ©dÃ©ral . Il s'ensuit que cette pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant fut conforme Ã la Convention, en particulier Ã son article 5, paragraphe 1 (f) . - 212 -
Quant Ã la deuxiÃ¨me pÃ©riode, c'est-Ã -dire Ã partir du 8 janvier 1980 . elle a Ã©galement respectÃ© cette disposition de la Convention, une procÃ©dure d'extradition Ã©tant en cours contre le requÃ©rant . Il n'y a donc aucune apparence de violation de la Convention, en particulier de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e et ce grief doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©, lui aussi, comme manifestement mal fondÃ© . au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . 3 . Enfin, le requÃ©rant se plaint qu'il a Ã©tÃ© extradÃ© un dimanche Ã l'insu de son Ã©pouse, et allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 8 de la Convention qui garantit Ã toute personne le droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale . La Commission relÃ¨ve Ã cet Ã©gard que les autoritÃ©s suisses ont dÃ©sirÃ© que la prÃ©sence de l'Ã©pouse du requÃ©rant t17t Ã©vitÃ©e afin de rendre moins pÃ©nible son extradition . Celle-ci eut lieu un dimanche car il existe uniquement deux vols hebdomadaires Ã destination de l'Emirat de Dubai . Vu les circonstances particuliÃ¨res de l'affaire, la Commission considÃ¨re qu'il n'y a pas eu d'apparence de violation de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e . Il s'ensuit que le restant de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs . la Commission DECLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE .
(TRANSLAT/ON) THE FACTS The following is a summa ry of the facts of the case as presented by the applicant : The applicant is an Indian national, born in 1934 in Colombo (Sri Lanka) . He has been a merchant for several years in the Emirate of Dubai (United Arab Emirates) . He is represented before the Commission by Mr Michel Halperin, a lawyer practising at the Geneva bar . On 29 September 1978, the applicant was arrested in Geneva by the Cantonal police, on suspicion of having commi tted se rious fraud abroad . At the request of the Federal authorities, he was placed in detention by th e
Geneva authorities, pending extradition . On 3 October 1978, the police in the Emirate of Dubai wrote to the Swiss Consulate in Dubai requesting the applicant's arrest . On the same day, the Dubai police sent a telex containing a similar request to Interpol in Switzerland . Another telex of the same date from the Dubai police to Interpol in Switzerland stated that the applicant was wanted in connection with charges of fraud . On 4 October 1978, Interpol in Abu Dhabi, referring to a telex from Interpol in Switzerland of 30 September 1978 . requested the latter to keep the applicant in detention and stated that a formal request for extradition was being transmitted . On the same day, a warrant was issued for the applicant's arrest pending extradition by the Federal Police Department . On 20 October 1978, the United Arab Emirates requested the Swiss authorities to extradite the applicant, and appended several documents to their request, inter alia two arrest warrants issued by the Dubai Court on 3 and 5 October 1978, the first one for fraud and the second for forgery of documents . without however specifying the alleged offences . (The case rile was completed on I December 1978) . On 27 October 1978, they requested that all the applicant's assets in Switzerland be transfered to them of . On an application by the Federal authorities, the assets which the applicant and his wife had deposited in Swiss banks were placed under an administration order . On 16 December 1978, the Dubai Court issued an intemational warrant, containing reasons for the applicant's arrest . It was alleged that, by means of forged documents ("bills of lading"), he had succeeded in obtaining payment on a documentary credit, issued at the request of a buyer . in connection with the sale of 1,000 tons of sugar for the sum of 190,000 dollars, payable by letter of credit . He is suspected of never having sent the goods or caused them to be sent . It was easier for him to do this because he was both the owner of a trading business and of a shipping firm . On 21 January 1979, the same court issued a second international warrant, containing reasons for the applicant's arrest stating that he was accused of several other fraudulent operations carried out in the same way . The total of the alleged fraud amounted to more than 2 million dollars . This warrant was sent to the Federal Police Department on 31 January 1979 . On 4 January 1979, the applicant was questioned by Geneva police o n the basis of documents received to date . Following the second reasoned arrest warrant, of 21 January 1979, he was again questioned on 6 February 1979 . He challenged the substance of the charges brought against him and stated he would contest his extradition . He alleged that Asian nationals like himself, were subjected to racial discrimination by the . administrative and judicial authorities in Dubai . He also expressed fears of being deprived of the guarantees of a fair trial and of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment . - 214 -
On I June 1979 the applicant applied for provisional release because, inter alia . of his deteriorating health . On 15 June 1979, the Federal Police Department ordered his provisional release, subject to certain conditions, including inter alia payment of bail of 30,000 Swiss francs, deposit of all identity documents with the police and the obligation to remain within the Geneva area and report twice weekly to the police . The Federal Police Department reserved the right to order the applicant's return to detention in the event of non-compliance with these conditions . On 8 January 1980, the Federal Police Departntent revoked that decision and ordered the applicant's rearrest and retu rn to detention pending extradition . In support of its decision, it noted that the Public Prosecutor's department for the Confederation had adopted a position in favour of extradition and that the case file would shortly be transmitted to the Federal Court for a decision . It furthermore considered that the decision to arrest was necessary on account of the risk of the applicant's absconding abroad, in view of two letters of 19 and 20 November 1979 he sent to the Federal Police Department complaining of delays in the proceedings and requesting permission to go to Dublin to see his mother who was ill . Finally the Federal Police Department stated that its decision was justified on account of the applicant's improved health . The applicant appealed against that decision on 15 January 1980 to the Federal Justice and Police Department, asking for it to be set aside and for his immediate release . The appeal was transmitted by the Federal Justice and Police Department to the Federal Court on grounds of jurisdiction and on 20 January 1980 . the entire case fi1e was sent to that Court, in accordance with Section 23 of the Federal Act on Extradition to Foreign States', so that it could decide on the question of extradition . In case the Federal Justice and Police Department should not have jurisdiction to rule on the appeal of 15 January 1980, the applicant applied to that court for bail on 7 February 1980, relying on Section 25 (2) of the said Act" . On 8 February 1980 the Federal Court rejected the appeal of 15 January 1980 and the application for bail of 7 February 1980 . It considered that the Federal Police Department had correctly applied the law in holding that fears â¢ Section 23 of the Extradition Act provides that : "1 . Where, on the other, an individual who has been arrested raises an objection based on Ihis Act, on a treaty or on a declaration of reciprocity, the Federal Council shall transmit the case file to the Federal Coun, informing Ihe government of the Canton concerned , 2 . ( . . .)" . â¢â¢ Section 25 of the Extradition Act provides that : I . Bail may be granted, where it seems necessary under Ihc circumstances. 2 . h shall be ordered by Ihe Federnl Court, where the matter has been brought before it ; otherwise ii shall be ordered by the Federal Council . "
of the applicant's absconding were justified under the circumstances to the extent that his return to detention was warranted . It noted that there was a greater risk of his absconding, in view of the seriousness of the offences of which he stood accused, the proximity in time of a decision on the merits of the case and the Federal Public prosecutor's preliminary opinion in favour of extradition . On 22 February 1980, the Federal Court rejected the applicant's objection and ordered that he be extradited to the Emirate of Dubai . However it made his extradition subject to the following thirteen conditions : "1 . the situation of the person being extradited may not be worsened (during detention, investigation or trial) for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion (Art . 3, European Convention on Extradition) , 2 . the requesting State shall grant the person being extradited the rights recognised by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, of 4 November 1950 , 3 . the person being extradited shall not be subjected to corporal punishment of any kind (Sect . 5 Extradition Act) , 4 . the person being extradited shall not be prosecuted or punished for offences which he may have committed before the application, other than those which lead to his extradition, within the meaning of Section 7 of the Extradition Act , 5 . the requesting State may not extradite the person concemed to a third State, except in accordance with the conditions of Section 8 of the Extradition Act , . 6 . the person being extradited shall not be tried by a special court (Sect . 9, Extradition Act) , 7 . the person being extradited shall not be prosecuted or punished for a political crime nor for its political motive or objective (Sect . 10 Extradition Act), 8 . where the person being extradited has also committed a tax or militar y offence, such offence may not lead to a conviction nor may it constitute an aggravating circumstance (Sect . 11 Extradition Act) , 9 . the requesting State shall limit itself to the indications in the letter from the Consulate General of the United Arab Emirates in Geneva, of 18 April 1979 , 10 . if the person being extradited has to be detained, it shall be in the principal (new) prison in Dubai (and not the old prison) , 11 . the person being extradited may not be subjected to any kind of cruelty or treatment that is degrading or damaging to his health , 12 . the person being extradited shall receive the necessary medical care and, when his state of health so requires, he shall receive appropriate treatment and if necessary be admitted to an appropriate hospital ,
13 . the Swiss Diplomatic Representation may inquire into the state of proceedings and attend any judicial hearings ; it shall receive a copy of the decision terminating judicial proceedings ; it may visit the person being extradited without supervision ; the latter may at any time request a visit from the Swiss Diplomatic Representation . " On 28 February 1980, the applicant's lawyer informed the Federal Police Department that he intended bringing the case before the European Commission of Human Rights . He asked the department to suspend the enforcement of the applicant's extradition until the Commission had examined the application . On 23 March 1980, the applicant was extradited by the Swiss authorities to the Emirate of Dubai . On 26 March 1980, the applicant's lawyer complained to the Federal Justice Department that his client had been extradited, while he was waiting for the Federal Court to publish the reasons for its judgment of 22 February 1980 in order to lodge an application with the European Commission of Human Rights . He also complained that the applicant had been extradited on a Sunday, without the knowledge of his wife or of his lawyer . On 3 April 1980, the Federal Justice Department, in its reply to this letter, pointed out first that the judgments of the Federal Court were final and consequently extradition orders were enforced immediately afterwards . In the instant case, the authorities had simply waited for the State of Dubai to guarantee its compliance with the conditions in the judgment of the Federal Court granting extradition and for the applicant's state of health to enable him to be extradited . In fact, on 17 March 1980, the Consulate General of the United Arab Emirates in Geneva sent the following document to the Swiss authorities : "The Government of the Emirates of Dubai hereby assures the Swiss Federal Council that it accepts, without exception or reservation, all the requirements and conditions in points (a) to (m) of the judgment of the Swiss Federal Court (II Public Law Court) relating to the extradition of X . delivered on 22 February 1980" . A medical certificate issued by the Institute of Forensic Medicine of the University of Geneva dated 19 March 1980 states that the applicant "should be kept in hospital and could only be moved from one hospital to another, and under medical supervision" . He was accompanied on his journey by a doctor and a nurse from Dubai . When the Geneva police inspectors who had escorted the applicant retumed to Switzerland, they informed the Federal Justice Department that he had ended his eight-week-old hunger strike as soon as the plane had taken off . After admission to hospital in Dubai his health appears to have improved signiricantly . The Federal Department noted that the applicant was extradited on a Sunday without having seen his wife so as to avoid any incident . With regard
to the applicant's intention to refer the case to the European Commission of Human Rights, it noted that such an appeal did not have suspensive effect and that in any case it had not been referred to the Commission by the date of extradition . On 27 June 1980, the applicant's lÃ¢wyer sent the Secretariat of the Commission a copy of a letter which the applicant had written on 14 June 1980 to the Governor of Dutiai Prison, complaining essentially of his deteriorating health and the inipossibility of telephoning his wife and children .
On 27 October 1980, the applicant's lawyer sent the Secretariat his correspondence with the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, which on 21 October 1980, informed him of the applicant's hospital conditions and the state of the proceedings . In his reply, the applicant's lawyer complained that according to his information, the applicant was being detained in a cell and often is solitary confinement, and that no investigations had been commenced in the proceedings which had led to his extradition . He conceded on the other hand that the applicant's hospital conditions were adequate . Complaint s The following is a summa ry of the applicant's complaints : 1 . He complains that his eztradition to Dubai amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment because Asian nationals are subjected to racial discrimination and ill treatment by the authorities of that State . He also notes that he should not have been extradited on account of his illness . He alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention . 2 . Secondly, he complains of his detention pending extradition on two occasions in Switzerland . The first period of detention began on 29 September 1978 . four days before the warrant for arrest pending extradition was issued . Since he was released on 15 June 1979 . and placed in detention again on 8lanuary 1980, he considers that the second period of detention was unjustified and relies on Article 5, 1(f) of the Convention . 3 . Finally he complains of having been extraditedi on a Sunday without having been able to see his wife. He complains here of .a violation of Article 8 of the Convention .
THE LAW 1, The applicant alleges that the Swiss authorities, by extraditing him to the United Arab Emirates (the Emirate of Dubai), exposed him to inhuman and degrading treatment, because Asian nationals like himself are subject to racial discrimination and ill treatment in that State . He also maintains that he was not well enough to be extradited and alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention . -218-
The Commission notes firstly that in accordance with established precedent . no ri ght not to be extradited is included as such in the rights and freedoms recognised in the Convention (cf. decisions on the admissibility of Application No . 2143/64, Yearbook 7, p . 329 ; No . 1983/63, Yearbook 8, p . 261 and No . 7317/75, D .R . 6, p . 141, 152) . However, as the Commission has already held on several occasions, the extradition of a detained person may . under certain exceptional circumstances, give rise to a delicate issue under the Convention, especially with regard to Article 3 . where there are serious reasons for fearing that such measures may expose the individual concerned to treatment prohibited by that Article in the State to which he is being sent (cf. Decisions on the Admissibility ofApplications No . 1802/62 . Yearbook 6, p . 481 and No . 5012/72 . Collection of Decisions 40, p . 62) . Under Article 3 of the Convention :"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . " In the instant case, the applicant has not shown that the Swiss authorities exposed him to the alleged risk by extraditing him to the United Arab Emirates (Emirate of Dubai) . The Federal Court granted his extradition only subject to compliance with 13 carefully worded conditions (see the Facts) . Furthermore, he was extradited only after the authorities of the Emirate of Dubai had agreed to observe all these conditions without exception or reservation . With regard to the applicant's health, he was accompanied during his plane journey by a doctor and a nurse . Finally, it appears from the letter of 14 June 1980 written by the applicant to the Governor of Dubai Prison, that he was not subjected to torture or inhuman treatment by the prison authorities . He complained only of a deterioration in his general state of health, and of not having been allowed to telephone his wife and children . Moreover, the last letter sent by the applicant's lawyer, dated 27 October 1980, does not show that the applicant's conditions of detention were poor . Under the circumstances, the Contmission considers that an examinatio n of this complaint reveals no violation of the rights and freedomsguaranteed by the Convention, and in particular by Article 3 . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded withi n the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . . 2. The applicant complains secondly of the lawfulness of his detention in Switzerland pending extradition . He argues that he was arrested by the Geneva police on 29 September 1978, whereas his extradition was not requested by the Emirate of Dubai until 3 October 1978 . He also complains that the Federal Police Department had ordered a second period of detention on 8 January 1980 . He alleges a violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention which guarantees the right to liberty and security of person and gives an exhaustive list of thecases in which a person may be deprived of his liberty provided that procedures prescribed by law are complied with .
The Commission nÃ´tes first that the question of whether the detention was lawful must be assessed essentially with regard to Swiss law (see Application No . 7256/75 v . Belgium, D .R . 8, p . 162) . It finds that Sections 17 and 18 of the Federal Act on Extradition to Foreign States empowers the responsible Federal Administrative authorities to arrest and detain persons whose provisional arrest has been requested in connection with an application for their .extradition . Section 20 of the Act provides that "in serious cases, and where there is danger in .delay, the Cantonal Police authorities may, of their own motion, arrest an individual wanted by foreign police authorities" . Admittedly, in-the instant case the extradition request was not made until 3 October 1978 . However, the documents in the case file show that the police of the Emirate of Dubai and the Swiss police were in contact on the question of the applicant's extradition since 30 September 1978 . From that date onwards he was detained by a decision of the Federal Police Department acting under the authority of the Federal Council . It follows that the applicant's period of detention complied with the Convention, and in particular with Article 5, 1(f) . The second period beginning on 8 January 1980 also complied with that provision of the Convention as extradition proceedings against the applicant had been commenced . There is, therefore, no appearance of aviolation of the Convention, or particularly of the above-mentioned provision and this complaint must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) . 3 . Finally . the applicant complains that he was extradited on a Sunday without the knowledge of his wife, and in this respect alleges a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees everyone the right to respect for his private and family life . The Comniission notes in this respect that the Swiss authorities stated that the presence of the applicant's wife was avoided in order to make his extradition less painful . He was extradited on a Sunday because there were only two weekly flights to the Emirate of Dubai . In view of the particular circumstances of the case, the Commissio n considers that there is no appearance of a violation of the above-mentioned provision . It follows that the rest of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 ( 2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission
- 220 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (plénière)Date de la décision : 09/12/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page