ECtHR - Hilal v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 45276/99, 6 June 2001

The Court, after examining the materials provided by the applicant, found no basis to reject them as forged. It further accepted that the applicant was arrested and detained due to his participation within the opposition of the ruling party and his financial support to that party. It also acknowledged that the applicant had been ill-treated during his detention, taking into account the medical records of the hospital that treated him [64-65]. Turning to the medical reports and his brother’s death certificate, it highlighted that they were consistent with the applicant’s allegations that his brother had been ill-treated in prison. The Court also recalled the applicant’s wife statements in her interview that the police came to her house looking for the applicant and had threatened her on several occasions, statements which were consistent with the information provided by different reports on the region [66].

What is more, the Court was not persuaded that the "internal flight" option offered a reliable guarantee against the risk of ill-treatment. Therefore, it found 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 [68].

Turning to the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 and 8, the Court considered that in light of its above conclusions, no separate issue had arisen [70-71].

Concerning the applicant’s complaint under Article 13, the Court noted that the substance of the applicant’s complaint was examined by the Court of Appeal and therefore concluded that the applicant had an effective remedy at his disposal [79]. Accordingly, it concluded that there had been no violation of Article 13.