Hilal v United Kingdom (Application 45276/99) [2001] ECHR 214

A Tanzanian asylum seeker from Zanzibar, who had been tortured for supporting the opposition CUF party, faced deportation from the UK. The Court found that returning him to Tanzania would violate Article 3 due to the real risk of torture or inhuman treatment, rejecting the 'internal flight' option to mainland Tanzania.

Facts

The applicant, Said Mohammed Hilal, was born in Pemba, Zanzibar in 1968. He joined the opposition Civic United Front (CUF) party in 1992. In August 1994, he was arrested due to his CUF involvement and detained for three months at Madema police station, where he was subjected to severe torture including being locked in cells full of water, hung upside down causing severe nasal haemorrhaging, and given electric shocks. His brother was also detained and died in hospital in January 1995 after being released from prison in a critical condition.

Following his release and continued police interest in him, the applicant fled to the United Kingdom on 9 February 1995 and claimed asylum. His asylum application was refused, and his appeal to a special adjudicator was dismissed in November 1996, primarily on credibility grounds. Subsequent requests to have new documentary evidence (including medical reports and a police summons to his parents) considered were rejected by the Secretary of State, who maintained that the applicant could safely relocate to mainland Tanzania.

Issues

Article 3

Whether the applicant’s expulsion to Tanzania would expose him to a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

Article 13

Whether the applicant had an effective domestic remedy available to challenge his proposed expulsion.

Internal Flight Alternative

Whether the applicant could safely relocate to mainland Tanzania to avoid persecution in Zanzibar.

Judgment

Article 3 Finding

The Court found that expelling the applicant to Tanzania would violate Article 3. The Court accepted the authenticity of the applicant’s documentary evidence, including medical reports confirming his torture injuries:

The Court accepts that the applicant was arrested and detained because he was a member of the CUF opposition party and had provided them with financial support. It also finds that he was ill-treated during that detention by, inter alia, being suspended upside down, which caused him severe haemorrhaging through the nose.

Regarding the ‘internal flight’ option to mainland Tanzania, the Court stated:

The Court is not persuaded, therefore, that the ‘internal flight’ option offers a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. It concludes that the applicant’s deportation to Tanzania would breach Article 3 as he would face a serious risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment there.

Article 13 Finding

The Court found no violation of Article 13, holding that judicial review provided an effective remedy:

The Court is satisfied that the domestic courts give careful scrutiny to claims that an expulsion would expose an applicant to the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Implications

This case reinforces the absolute nature of Article 3 protection in expulsion cases. It establishes that where credible evidence exists of past torture and ongoing risk, the ‘internal flight’ alternative must offer a reliable guarantee against ill-treatment, not merely a theoretical possibility of safety. The judgment is significant for demonstrating that even low-level political activists may qualify for protection where systematic persecution of opposition members exists. The Court also confirmed its willingness to assess evidence independently where domestic procedures have not adequately examined fresh material.

Verdict: The Court unanimously held that the expulsion of the applicant to Tanzania would violate Article 3 of the Convention. No separate issues arose under Articles 6 and 8. There was no violation of Article 13. The finding of violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage. The UK was ordered to pay costs and expenses of GBP 12,583.87 plus VAT.

Source: Hilal v United Kingdom (Application 45276/99) [2001] ECHR 214