BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SANCHEZ-SANCHEZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM - 22854/20 (Judgment : Right to a fair trial : Fifth Section) French Text [2020] ECHR 929_2 (12 June 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2020/929_2.html Cite as: [2020] ECHR 929_2 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law 255
October 2021
Sanchez-Sanchez v. the United Kingdom (relinquishment) - 22854/20
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Extradition to the USA with alleged real risk of life imprisonment without parole: relinquishment in favour of the Grand Chamber
The applicant is a Mexican national currently being detained in the United Kingdom. He faces extradition to the USA where he is wanted on federal charges of drug dealing and trafficking. If convicted, his sentencing level would be Level 43 in the US Sentencing Guidelines, which has a sentence range of life imprisonment.
The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the High Court against his extradition order. In its decision, the High Court considered itself bound, by an earlier decision of the House of Lords, to hold that to extradite a claimant to the USA to face, if convicted, a life sentence without parole, would not breach Article 3. The High Court considered that, following the European Court’s judgment in Trabelsi v. Belgium, there was no “clear and consistent” jurisprudence from the European Court about the application of Article 3 to sentences of life imprisonment without parole in the extradition context. It was also satisfied that the life sentence was not irreducible, noting the two routes by which a prisoner could seek a reduction in sentence under the US federal system: compassionate release and executive clemency (compare with McCallum v. Italy, concerning the system applicable in the State of Michigan).
The applicant complains under Article 3 that, if extradited, there would be a real risk that he would be subjected to inhuman and degrading punishment through the imposition of an “irreducible” life sentence; and that there is a real risk that post-conviction detention conditions would be inhuman and degrading.
Under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Court has indicated to the United Kingdom Government that the applicant should not be extradited for the duration of the proceedings before it.
On 19 October 2021 a Chamber of the Court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber.
(See also Trabelsi v. Belgium, 140/10, 4 September 2014, Legal Summary; McCallum v. Italy (relinquishment), 20863/21, Legal Summary)
