Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingom (no. 8139/09) - Chamber Judgment 17 January 2012. The applicant, Omar Othman (Abu Qatada), is a Jordanian national suspected of having links with al-Qaeda. He is currently detained in Long Latin prison in Worcestershire, England. He was granted asylum in the United Kingdom in 1994 on the basis of having been detained and tortured in Jordan. In May 1998 the applicant applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. This application had not been determined before the applicant’s arrest in October 2001 under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. When that Act was repealed in March 2005, the applicant was released on bail and made subject to a control order. While appeal of that order was still pending, the applicant was served with a notice of intention to deport.
In his appeal against that decision to the United Kingdom Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), the applicant argued, inter alia, that the decision was incompatible with Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the European Convention. Relying on his previous asylum claim, he argued that his high profile would mean he would be of real interest to the Jordanian authorities. If returned, he would also face retrial for the offenses for which he had been convicted in absentia. He would thus face lengthy pre-trial detention (in breach of Article 5) and, if convicted, would face a long term of imprisonment. All these factors meant he was at real risk of torture, either pre-trial or after conviction, to obtain a confession from him or to obtain information for other reasons. He was also at risk of the death penalty or rendition to other countries, such as the United States of America. Relying on Article 6, he alleged that his retrial would be flagrantly unfair: the State Security Court, a military court, lacked independence from the executive and there was a real risk that evidence obtained by torture – either of him, his co-defendants or other prisoners – would be admitted against him. The appeal was dismissed in 2007.
In his application to the ECtHR, the applicant raised Articles 3 (alone and in conjunction with Article 13), 5, and 6. The Court found no violations of Articles 3, 5, and 13, but held "that the applicant’s deportation to Jordan would be in violation of Article 6 of the Convention on ccount of the real risk of the admission of evidence at the applicant’s retrial obtained by torture of third persons."