1. Alleged Breach of Article 3
The Court recalled that Contracting States have the right to control the entry, residence, and expulsion of aliens. It also noted the gravity of the offence which was committed by the applicant and stated that the administration of severe sanctions to persons involved in drug trafficking, including the expulsion of alien drug couriers like the applicant, was a justified response. However, a Contracting State must have regard to Art. 3, which prohibits in absolute terms inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicant maintained that his removal would condemn him to spend his remaining days in pain and suffering in conditions of isolation and without proper medical care, thus not only accelerating his death but also creating inhuman and degrading conditions for the end of his life. The Court stated that it was for the respondent State to secure to the applicant the rights guaranteed under Art. 3 irrespective of the gravity of his offence. This principle is not limited to risks which emanate from intentionally inflicted acts of the public authorities in the receiving country or from those of non-State bodies when the country’s authorities are unable to afford an individual the appropriate protection. The Court is not limited from scrutinising a claim under Art. 3 where the source of the risk of the proscribed treatment stems from factors which cannot engage either directly or indirectly the responsibility of the public authorities of that country, or which taken alone, do not in themselves infringe the standards of Art. 3, as such a limitation would undermine the absolute character of Art. 3’s protection.
The Court then assessed whether the applicant’s removal would present a real risk of treatment contrary to Art. 3 in view of his present medical condition and in light of the material before it at the time of its consideration of the case. It determined that his abrupt withdrawal from the facilities and separation from his carers in the UK would hasten his death and that there was a serious danger of conditions of adversity in St Kits which would subject him to acute and mental physical suffering. In view of his exceptional circ*mstances and bearing in mind the critical stage of his fatal illness, it found that implementation of his removal would amount to inhuman treatment in violation of Art. 3. It emphasized that aliens who have served their prison sentences and are subject to expulsion cannot, in principle, claim any entitlement to remain in the Contracting State territory, and stressed the very exceptional circ*mstances and compelling humanitarian considerations at stake in this case.
2. Alleged Breach of Article 2
The Court considered the applicant’s allegation that the implementation of his removal to St Kitts by the UK would amount to a breach of Art. 2 as there would be, he claimed, a direct causal link between his expulsion and his accelerated death as to violate his right to life. The Court found, in agreement with the Commission, that the complaints raised under Art. 2 were indissociable from the substance of the complaint under Art. 3. Having already found that his removal to St Kitts would give rise to a violation of Art. 3, it found it unnecessary to examine the complaint under Art. 2.
3. Alleged Breach of Article 8
The Court considered the applicant’s allegation that his proposed removal would violate his right to respect for his private life, as guaranteed by Art. 8. Having regard to its finding under Art. 3., the Court concluded that the applicant’s complaints under Art. 8 raised no separate issue.
4. Alleged Breach of Article 13
The Court considered the applicant’s complaint that he had no effective remedy in English law in respect of his complaints under Art. 2, 3, and 8, giving rise to a breach of Art. 13. The Court observed that the effect of Art. 13 is to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority to both deal with the substance with the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they conform to their obligations under this provision.
The Court found that while the source of the risk of the prohibited treatment was different from that of Soering and Vilvarajah, in which the Court considered judicial review proceedings in the UK to be an effective remedy in relation to the complaints raised under Art. 3, there was no reason to depart from the conclusion reached in those cases. The substance of the applicant’s complaint had been examined by the Court of Appeal; it had power to afford him the relief he sought and the fact that it did not do so was not a material consideration since the effectiveness of a remedy does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for an applicant. Because the applicant thus had an effective remedy in relation to his complaints under Art. 2, 3, and 8, there was no breach of Art. 13 found.
5. Application of Article 50
The applicant did not seek damages but only claimed reimbursem*nt for costs and expenses in respect of the proceedings brought before the Convention institutions, which was granted, albeit at a reduced amount after the Court made an assessment on an equitable basis.
