HLR v France (Application 24573/94) [1997] ECHR 23

A Colombian national convicted of drug trafficking in France faced deportation. He claimed that returning to Colombia would expose him to revenge by drug traffickers he had informed on, violating Article 3 ECHR. The Court held by 15-6 that deportation would not violate Article 3 as sufficient risk was not established.

Facts

H.L.R., a Colombian national born in 1968, was arrested at Roissy Airport in May 1989 while in transit from Colombia to Italy, found in possession of 580 grammes of cocaine. While in police custody, he provided information about drug traffickers who had recruited him, which enabled the identification and subsequent arrest of one trafficker (H.B.) in Germany. H.L.R. was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, with a permanent exclusion order from France.

Following his release in December 1992, a deportation order was issued in April 1994 despite the Aliens’ Deportation Board’s opinion that he should not be deported. The applicant claimed that if returned to Colombia, he would face revenge from drug traffickers due to his cooperation with French authorities.

Issues

Primary Legal Issue

Whether the deportation of the applicant to Colombia would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, where the alleged risk emanates from non-state actors (drug traffickers) rather than public authorities.

Secondary Issues

Whether Article 3 protection extends to situations where the risk comes from private individuals or groups rather than state authorities, and whether the Colombian state could provide adequate protection.

Judgment

The Court held by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation of Article 3 if the deportation order were executed.

The Court established an important principle regarding non-state actors:

Owing to the absolute character of the right guaranteed, the Court does not rule out the possibility that Article 3 of the Convention may also apply where the danger emanates from persons or groups of persons who are not public officials. However, it must be shown that the risk is real and that the authorities of the receiving State are not able to obviate the risk by providing appropriate protection.

Regarding the evidence presented, the Court found:

Although drug traffickers sometimes take revenge on informers, there is no relevant evidence to show in H.L.R.’s case that the alleged risk is real. His aunt’s letters cannot by themselves suffice to show that the threat is real.

The Court concluded that no substantial grounds had been established for believing the applicant would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

Dissenting Opinions

Six judges dissented. Judge Pekkanen, joined by three others, argued that the applicant’s status as an ‘informer’ placed him at particular risk and that the lawlessness in Colombia meant the state could not provide adequate protection. They compared the case to Chahal v. United Kingdom, arguing similar risks existed.

Judge Jambrek noted that the applicant had cooperated with French authorities and that France should provide minimal protection by refraining from deportation.

Implications

This judgment is significant for establishing that Article 3 protection can, in principle, extend to risks emanating from non-state actors. However, it sets a high evidential threshold, requiring applicants to demonstrate both that the risk is real and that the receiving state cannot provide adequate protection. The case influenced subsequent jurisprudence on deportation cases involving risks from private actors rather than state persecution.

Verdict: The Court held by fifteen votes to six that there would be no violation of Article 3 of the Convention if the order for the applicant’s deportation to Colombia were to be executed.

Source: HLR v France (Application 24573/94) [1997] ECHR 23