Soering v. United Kingdom
Encyclopedia
Soering v United Kingdom 11 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1989) is a landmark
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) which established that extradition
of a young German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder
violated Article 3
of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment.
national, born in 1966, who was brought by his parents to the United States
at age eleven. In 1984, he was an 18-year old honor student at the University of Virginia
, where he became good friends with Elizabeth Haysom, a Canadian national two years his elder.
Haysom's parents, William Reginald Haysom and Nancy Astor Haysom, lived 65 miles from the university, in Boonsboro (a suburb of Lynchburg), and were against their daughter's relationship with Söring. According to the account provided later to local police, Söring and Elizabeth Haysom decided to kill Haysom's parents; and, to divert suspicion, they rented a car in Charlottesville and drove to Washington D.C. On 30 March 1985, Söring drove to the Haysom residence and dined with the unsuspecting couple. During or after dinner, he picked a quarrel and viciously attacked them with a knife. Both were found with their throats slit and with stab and slash wounds to the neck and body.
In October 1985, Söring and Elizabeth Haysom fled to Europe; and, on 30 April 1986, they were arrested in England
on charges of cheque fraud. Six weeks later, a grand jury
of the Circuit Court of Bedford County, Virginia
, indicted Söring with the capital murder of the Haysoms, as well as their separate non-capital murders. On 11 August 1986, the United States requested extradition for the pair, based on the 1972 extradition treaty. A warrant was issued under section 8 of the Extradition Act 1870 for the arrest of Söring, and he was committed
to await the Home Secretary
's order to extradite him to the United States.
Söring filed a petition for habeas corpus
with the Divisional Court
and requested permission for judicial review
of the decision to commit him, arguing that the Extradition Act 1870 did not authorise extradition for a capital charge. He also cited article IV of the US-UK
extradition treaty, which provides that an extradition request for an offence carrying the death penalty can be refused if the requesting country has not given "assurances [...] that the death penalty will not be carried out." An assurance had been provided by the Commonwealth Attorney of Bedford County
; but Söring contended it was worthless. On 11 December 1987, Lord Justice Lloyd in the Divisional Court admitted that the assurance "leaves something to be desired" but refused the request for judicial review, stating that Söring's request was premature, as the Home Secretary had not yet accepted the assurance.
Söring appealed to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which rejected his claim on 30 June 1988. He, then, petitioned the Home Secretary without success, the latter authorising extradition on 3 August 1988.
Anticipating this outcome, Söring had filed a claim with the European Commission of Human Rights
(ECHR) on 9 July 1988, asserting that he would face inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention") were he to be extradited to the USA, it being likely that the death penalty would be applied.
Söring's arguments that the use by a non-Convention State of the death penalty would engage the right to life were novel, in that Article 2(1) of the Convention expressly permits the use of the death penalty, and Article 3 had never been interpreted to bring the death penalty, per se, within the prohibition of "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The applicant, therefore, sought to make it clear that this was not the simple application of a punishment prescribed by law, but rather his exposure to the death row phenomenon
, where he would be kept in detention for an unknown period, awaiting execution. The ECHR requested that no extradition take place pending the deliverance of its judgment.
(ECHR) handed down a unanimous judgment affirming the Commission's conclusion that Article 3 could be engaged by the extradition process and that the extraditing state could be responsible for the breach where it is aware of a real risk that the person may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. Amnesty International
intervened in the case and submitted that, in the light of "evolving standards in Western Europe regarding the existence and use of the death penalty", this punishment should be considered as inhuman and degrading and was therefore effectively prohibited by Article 3. This was not accepted by the ECHR, as the Convention does allow for the death penalty's use in certain circumstances. It followed that Article 3 could not stand in the way of the extradition of a suspect simply because they might be subject to the death penalty.
However, even if the extradition itself would not constitute a breach of Article 3, such factors as the execution method, the detainee's personal circumstances, the sentence's disproportionality to the gravity of the crime, and conditions of detention could all violate Article 3. To answer this question, the Court had to determine whether there was a "real risk" of Söring's being executed. Relying on arguments by the Attorney-General for England and Wales, the ECHR did not give much weight to U.S. authorities' assurance that the Commonwealth of Virginia would not seek the death penalty.
Departing from the Commission's ruling, the ECHR concluded that the "death row phenomenon" did breach Article 3. They highlighted four factors that contributed to the violation:
As the ECHR concluded:
Elizabeth Haysom did not contest her extradition from the U.K. and pled guilty to conspiring to kill her parents. On 6 October 1987, the court sentenced her to 45-years-per-count to be served consecutively. She is serving her sentence at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women
.
Landmark decision
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law...
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
(ECtHR) which established that extradition
Extradition
Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another nation or state. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties...
of a young German national to the United States to face charges of capital murder
Capital punishment
Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally...
violated Article 3
Article 3 ECHR
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights prohibits torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". There are no exceptions or limitations on this right....
of the European Convention on Human Rights
European Convention on Human Rights
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953...
(ECHR) guaranteeing the right against inhuman and degrading treatment.
Facts
The applicant, Jens Söring, is a GermanGermany
Germany , officially the Federal Republic of Germany , is a federal parliamentary republic in Europe. The country consists of 16 states while the capital and largest city is Berlin. Germany covers an area of 357,021 km2 and has a largely temperate seasonal climate...
national, born in 1966, who was brought by his parents to the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
at age eleven. In 1984, he was an 18-year old honor student at the University of Virginia
University of Virginia
The University of Virginia is a public research university located in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States, founded by Thomas Jefferson...
, where he became good friends with Elizabeth Haysom, a Canadian national two years his elder.
Haysom's parents, William Reginald Haysom and Nancy Astor Haysom, lived 65 miles from the university, in Boonsboro (a suburb of Lynchburg), and were against their daughter's relationship with Söring. According to the account provided later to local police, Söring and Elizabeth Haysom decided to kill Haysom's parents; and, to divert suspicion, they rented a car in Charlottesville and drove to Washington D.C. On 30 March 1985, Söring drove to the Haysom residence and dined with the unsuspecting couple. During or after dinner, he picked a quarrel and viciously attacked them with a knife. Both were found with their throats slit and with stab and slash wounds to the neck and body.
In October 1985, Söring and Elizabeth Haysom fled to Europe; and, on 30 April 1986, they were arrested in England
England
England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. It shares land borders with Scotland to the north and Wales to the west; the Irish Sea is to the north west, the Celtic Sea to the south west, with the North Sea to the east and the English Channel to the south separating it from continental...
on charges of cheque fraud. Six weeks later, a grand jury
Grand jury
A grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether a criminal indictment will issue. Currently, only the United States retains grand juries, although some other common law jurisdictions formerly employed them, and most other jurisdictions employ some other type of preliminary hearing...
of the Circuit Court of Bedford County, Virginia
Bedford County, Virginia
As of the census of 2000, there were 60,371 people, 23,838 households, and 18,164 families residing in the county. The population density was 80 people per square mile . There were 26,841 housing units at an average density of 36 per square mile...
, indicted Söring with the capital murder of the Haysoms, as well as their separate non-capital murders. On 11 August 1986, the United States requested extradition for the pair, based on the 1972 extradition treaty. A warrant was issued under section 8 of the Extradition Act 1870 for the arrest of Söring, and he was committed
Committal procedure
In law, a committal procedure is the process by which a defendant is charged with a serious offence under the criminal justice systems of all common law jurisdictions outside the United States...
to await the Home Secretary
Home Secretary
The Secretary of State for the Home Department, commonly known as the Home Secretary, is the minister in charge of the Home Office of the United Kingdom, and one of the country's four Great Offices of State...
's order to extradite him to the United States.
Söring filed a petition for habeas corpus
Habeas corpus
is a writ, or legal action, through which a prisoner can be released from unlawful detention. The remedy can be sought by the prisoner or by another person coming to his aid. Habeas corpus originated in the English legal system, but it is now available in many nations...
with the Divisional Court
Divisional Court
A Divisional Court, in relation to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, means a court sitting with at least two judges. Matters heard by a Divisional Court include some criminal cases in the High Court as well as certain judicial review cases...
and requested permission for judicial review
Judicial review in English Law
Judicial review is a procedure in English administrative law by which the courts in England and Wales supervise the exercise of public power on the application of an individual...
of the decision to commit him, arguing that the Extradition Act 1870 did not authorise extradition for a capital charge. He also cited article IV of the US-UK
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandIn the United Kingdom and Dependencies, other languages have been officially recognised as legitimate autochthonous languages under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages...
extradition treaty, which provides that an extradition request for an offence carrying the death penalty can be refused if the requesting country has not given "assurances [...] that the death penalty will not be carried out." An assurance had been provided by the Commonwealth Attorney of Bedford County
Bedford County, Virginia
As of the census of 2000, there were 60,371 people, 23,838 households, and 18,164 families residing in the county. The population density was 80 people per square mile . There were 26,841 housing units at an average density of 36 per square mile...
; but Söring contended it was worthless. On 11 December 1987, Lord Justice Lloyd in the Divisional Court admitted that the assurance "leaves something to be desired" but refused the request for judicial review, stating that Söring's request was premature, as the Home Secretary had not yet accepted the assurance.
Söring appealed to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, which rejected his claim on 30 June 1988. He, then, petitioned the Home Secretary without success, the latter authorising extradition on 3 August 1988.
Anticipating this outcome, Söring had filed a claim with the European Commission of Human Rights
European Commission of Human Rights
European Commission of Human Rights was a special tribunal.From 1954 to the entry into force of Protocol 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, individuals did not have direct access to the European Court of Human Rights; they had to apply to the Commission, which if it found the case to be...
(ECHR) on 9 July 1988, asserting that he would face inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights ("the Convention") were he to be extradited to the USA, it being likely that the death penalty would be applied.
Söring's arguments that the use by a non-Convention State of the death penalty would engage the right to life were novel, in that Article 2(1) of the Convention expressly permits the use of the death penalty, and Article 3 had never been interpreted to bring the death penalty, per se, within the prohibition of "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The applicant, therefore, sought to make it clear that this was not the simple application of a punishment prescribed by law, but rather his exposure to the death row phenomenon
Death row phenomenon
The death row phenomenon, also known as the death row syndrome, is a term used to refer to the emotional distress felt by prisoners on death row. Concerns about the ethics of inflicting this distress upon prisoners have led to some legal concerns about the constitutionality of the death penalty in...
, where he would be kept in detention for an unknown period, awaiting execution. The ECHR requested that no extradition take place pending the deliverance of its judgment.
European Commission of Human Rights
Söring's application was declared admissible on 10 November 1988, and the European Commission of Human Rights gave its judgment on 19 January 1989. It decided, by six votes to five, that in this particular case the extradition would not constitute inhuman or degrading treatment. It did, however, accept that the extradition of a person to a country "where it is certain or where there is a serious risk that the person will be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment the deportation or extradition would, in itself, under such circumstances constitute inhuman treatment."European Court of Human Rights
On 7 July 1989, the European Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is a supra-national court established by the European Convention on Human Rights and hears complaints that a contracting state has violated the human rights enshrined in the Convention and its protocols. Complaints can be brought by individuals or...
(ECHR) handed down a unanimous judgment affirming the Commission's conclusion that Article 3 could be engaged by the extradition process and that the extraditing state could be responsible for the breach where it is aware of a real risk that the person may be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment. Amnesty International
Amnesty International
Amnesty International is an international non-governmental organisation whose stated mission is "to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights, and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated."Following a publication of Peter Benenson's...
intervened in the case and submitted that, in the light of "evolving standards in Western Europe regarding the existence and use of the death penalty", this punishment should be considered as inhuman and degrading and was therefore effectively prohibited by Article 3. This was not accepted by the ECHR, as the Convention does allow for the death penalty's use in certain circumstances. It followed that Article 3 could not stand in the way of the extradition of a suspect simply because they might be subject to the death penalty.
However, even if the extradition itself would not constitute a breach of Article 3, such factors as the execution method, the detainee's personal circumstances, the sentence's disproportionality to the gravity of the crime, and conditions of detention could all violate Article 3. To answer this question, the Court had to determine whether there was a "real risk" of Söring's being executed. Relying on arguments by the Attorney-General for England and Wales, the ECHR did not give much weight to U.S. authorities' assurance that the Commonwealth of Virginia would not seek the death penalty.
Departing from the Commission's ruling, the ECHR concluded that the "death row phenomenon" did breach Article 3. They highlighted four factors that contributed to the violation:
- The length of detention prior to execution
- Conditions on death row
- Söring's age and mental condition
- The possibility of his extradition to Germany
As the ECHR concluded:
Aftermath
The U.K. government obtained further assurances from the U.S. regarding the death penalty before extraditing Söring to Virginia. He was tried and convicted of the first degree murders of the Haysoms and, on 4 September 1990, sentenced to two consecutive life terms. He is serving his sentence at the Buckingham Correctional Center in Dillwyn, Virginia.Elizabeth Haysom did not contest her extradition from the U.K. and pled guilty to conspiring to kill her parents. On 6 October 1987, the court sentenced her to 45-years-per-count to be served consecutively. She is serving her sentence at the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women
Fluvanna County, Virginia
As of 2002, Fluvanna County's population was 20,047. There are 7,387 households, and 5,702 families residing in the county. The population density was 70 people per square mile . There were 8,018 housing units at an average density of 28 per square mile...
.
Significance
Soering v. United Kingdom is important in four respects:- It enlarges the scope of a state's responsibility for breaches of the Convention. A signatory State must now consider consequences of returning an individual to a third country where he might face treatment that breaches the Convention. This is notwithstanding that the ill-treatment may be beyond its control, or even that assurances have been provided that no ill-treatment has taken place.
- By finding a breach of the Convention on the territory of a non-signatory State, the Court considerably expanded the obligation to all States. Not only are signatories responsible for consequences of extradition suffered outside their jurisdiction, but this jurisdiction implicitly extends to actions in non-signatory States. The Convention also overrides agreements concluded with such States.
- The rationale of the Court's judgment applies equally to deportationDeportationDeportation means the expulsion of a person or group of people from a place or country. Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishment, exile, or penal transportation...
cases, where other articles of the Convention may apply, such as Article 6 (right to a fair trialRight to a fair trialThe right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. A trial in these countries that is deemed unfair will typically be restarted, or its verdict voided....
).
- The Court's approach to the death penalty, itself permitted by the Convention, may reduce its use by non-signatory States that seek to extradite suspects from signatory States. The decision makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the US and other capital punishmentCapital punishmentCapital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally...
countries to extradite suspects on capital charges from signatory States.
See also
- Restrictions on extraditions
- Death row phenomenonDeath row phenomenonThe death row phenomenon, also known as the death row syndrome, is a term used to refer to the emotional distress felt by prisoners on death row. Concerns about the ethics of inflicting this distress upon prisoners have led to some legal concerns about the constitutionality of the death penalty in...
- European Convention on Human RightsEuropean Convention on Human RightsThe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953...