Assignment 1 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1

Assignment 1 - Essay Example From 16 August 1990 he had been detained in Bedford prison for the reason of deportation3. The second applicant had come to UK on 12 September 1975 as a result of her marriage to the case`s first applicant back in India, and she presently lives in Luton together with the two kids of the family, who are also the 3rd and 4th applicants. Home Secretary of the day resolved that the claimant needed to be deported from British since his continued presence in UK was never conducive for the public good citing reasons that were political in nature, that is, the international fight against terrorism. However, the claimant stood a real risk if deported to India since he would be tortured or killed by security forces. He resorted to applying an asylum. However, the UK court did not provide an asylum seeker the proper chance to argue the case. In establishing whether it has been substantiated that indeed there is a factual risk that the claimant, if expelled to India, was to be exposed to treatme nt that is contrary to Article 3, the British Court assessed all the material positioned before it. The role of the court here was to uphold the law and protect human rights, and so it had to trade carefully in this case. The expedient of the appointing security-cleared counsel, directed by the court, who was to cross-examine witnesses and in general help the court to investigate the strength of the case of State, served to demonstrate that there are techniques that can be applied which accommodate legitimate security concerns regarding the nature and intelligence information sources and yet accord the person a considerable measure of procedural justice. Enshrined in Article 3 is among the most fundamental values of a democratic society4. The British Court is much aware of the immense obstacles faced by States in the modern times concerning shielding their communities from the violence of terrorist. However, even under these circumstances, the court, as stipulated in British constit ution, still uphold the law and hold high the dignity of human rights. The Convention outlawed in absolute terms, inhuman, torture, degrading treatment or punishment, regardless of the victim’s conduct. Contrasting many of the substantive clauses in the Convention and in Protocols Nos. 4 and 1, Article 3 creates no provision for exceptions5. Moreover, no derogation originating from it is permissible according to Article 15 even if a public emergency arises that threaten the life of the nation. The legality of the detention of an individual with an aim of deportation did not rely on whether the underlying decision of deportation could be justified, and that the appellants had never dared to challenge his detention independently as opposed to a decision to deport him. The court held that expelling the claimant might engage the responsibility of the State, as stipulated in Article 3 where substantial justification are shown for believing that there would be factual risk on the d eportee of torture, inhuman, punishment or degrading treatment in the receiving country. Clause in Article 3 offers a complete prohibition of torture in the expulsion cases. The deportee`s conduct can never be a material consideration for British court in a situation where substantial grounds indicate that the deportee would definitely be at