The extradition of Dara violated Article 3 of the

European Convention of Human Rights

(Dara v Calion and Lania)

Written Memorial on behalf of Dara

(Applicant)

Tbilisi State University

2023

1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents....................................................................2
(a) List of Abbreviations.........................................................2
(b) List of Sources...................................................................3
(c) Introduction........................................................................4
(d) Legal Framework...............................................................4
1. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).............4
2. Principles of Extradition...................................................5
(e) Violation of Article 3 ECHR.............................................5
1. Treatment in Lania............................................................5
2. Extradition Process...........................................................6
 Risk of Inhumane or Degrading Treatment in Calion:...6
 Extradition Treaty Safeguards:......................................6
 Failure to Adequately Assess Risks:..............................7
(f) Conclusion...........................................................................7

(a) List of Abbreviations

2
Adonia Archipelago and island country in the Blue Ocean
Calion Country to which Dara was extradited
Dara Adonian freelance interpreter
Lania Developed country in the Janeth continent
EctHR European Court of Human Rights
ECHR European Convention on Human Rights
OHCHR: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UDHR: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UNCAT: United Nations Convention Against Torture
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Ibid Ibidem
v. versus

(b) List of Sources

A. Treaties and Conventions:
UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, 217 A
(III); hereinafter cited as: UDHR

UN General Assembly, Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, 10 December 1984, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1465, p.
85; hereinafter cited as: UNCAT

United Nations, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, United Nations,
Treaty Series, vol. 1155, p. 331; hereinafter cited as: VCLT

Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, ETS 5;
hereinafter cited as: ECHR

Council of Europe, European Convention on Extradition, 13 December 1957, ETS 24

B. Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights:
Soering v. United Kingdom. (1989) 11 EHRR 439., ECHR 14038/88, 7 July 1989

3
Chahal and ors v United Kingdom, Merits and just satisfaction, App No 22414/93, Case No
70/1995/576/662, ECHR 1996-V, (1996) 23 EHRR 413, ECHR 54, 1 BHRC 405, IHRL
3103 (ECHR 1996), 15th November 1996, European Court of Human Rights [ECHR]; Grand
Chamber [ECHR]

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, Application no. 30696/09, Council of Europe: European
Court of Human Rights, 21 January 2011.

(c) Introduction
In the complex intersection of international law, human rights, and the delicate balance of
extradition procedures, the case of Dara v Calion and Lania emerges as a poignant testament
to the challenges faced by individuals navigating the intricacies of justice across borders. This
memorial delves into a critical question that transcends geopolitical boundaries: Did the
extradition of Dara, a freelance interpreter with a commitment to human rights, violate the
fundamental principles enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights?
As we embark on this legal exploration, the narrative unfolds against the backdrop of
Adonia's serene archipelago, the economic landscapes of Lania and Calion, and the pervasive
issue of drug trafficking in the Blue Ocean, Janeth region. Dara's journey, intricately
interwoven with the histories of these nations, raises profound questions about the rights of
individuals in the face of extradition, the conditions of detention, and the obligations of states
under international human rights law.
In the following pages, we navigate through the contextual intricacies, legal frameworks, and
factual nuances that define this case. Our pursuit is not only to scrutinize the alleged
violations but also to contribute to a broader discourse on the delicate balance between the
imperative of justice and the imperative of human dignity.
As we unravel the layers of this legal conundrum, we invite the reader to join us on a
thoughtful exploration of the extradition process, the treatment of individuals under the
custody of states, and the pivotal role of the European Convention on Human Rights in
safeguarding the inherent dignity of every person.

(d) Legal Framework

1. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
At the heart of Dara's plea for justice lies the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR), a binding testament to the shared commitment of European nations to safeguard
fundamental human rights. Instituted in 1950, the ECHR stands as a sentinel, compelling
signatory nations, including Lania and Calion, to adhere to stringent standards governing the
treatment of individuals within their jurisdiction.1

1
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950

4
Article 3 of the ECHR, the keystone in this legal edifice, unequivocally proscribes torture,
inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This provision, coupled with the ECHR's
robust enforcement mechanisms, establishes a formidable shield against the encroachment on
an individual's inherent dignity. Dara's situation calls for a meticulous examination under the
lens of Article 3, invoking not just the textual mandate but the rich jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).2
Legal precedents such as Soering v United Kingdom and Chahal v United Kingdom, both
seminal ECtHR cases, have elucidated the contours of Article 3 in the context of extradition.
These cases set the precedent that states must not extradite individuals if there exists a
credible risk that they will face treatment violating Article 3 in the requesting state. 3 Dara's
legal team will likely invoke these cases, arguing that her extradition to Calion, with the
alleged conditions awaiting her, poses precisely such a risk.
As Dara's case unfolds within the ECtHR, the legal arguments underpinning Article 3 will be
fortified by an extensive examination of the Convention and its interpretative legacy. The
ECtHR's role as the custodian of European human rights underscores the pivotal nature of
this legal framework in shaping the contours of justice for Dara.

2. Principles of Extradition
The principles guiding extradition constitute a labyrinthine network of international
agreements and customary norms, each bearing significance in assessing the legality and
legitimacy of Dara's transfer from Lania to Calion.
Central to the analysis is the Extradition Treaty between Lania and Calion, a document laying
down the specific conditions and obligations governing the extradition process. Legal
arguments will scrutinize the treaty's provisions, emphasizing clauses that prohibit extradition
when there is a credible risk of torture or inhuman treatment, aligning with the principles
entrenched in Article 3 of the ECHR.4
Moreover, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides a foundational framework
for interpreting and applying extradition treaties. Dara's legal team may leverage this
convention to bolster the argument that any extradition must adhere to the principles of good
faith and compliance with human rights obligations.5 The relevance of such arguments gains
prominence in light of the alleged human rights violations Dara faced in Lania and potentially
faces in Calion.
In tandem with these treaties, legal practitioners will navigate the Oslo Convention on
Extradition and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Both conventions underscore the international
community's unequivocal stance against torture, reinforcing the notion that extradition must
not result in subjecting an individual to conditions violating fundamental human rights. 6

2
Ibid
3
Soering v United Kingdom [1989] and Chahal v United Kingdom [1996]
4
Extradition Treaty between Lania and Calion
5
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1969].
6
Oslo Convention on Extradition [1957]; United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment [1984]

5
(e) Violation of Article 3 ECHR
1. Treatment in Lania
The saga of Dara's ordeal begins with her detention in Lania, marking the inception of a
narrative fraught with legal complexities and human rights implications. The conditions of
her confinement, as outlined in various reports, raise substantial concerns regarding the
potential violation of Article 3 of the ECHR, which unequivocally prohibits torture, inhuman,
or degrading treatment.
During her detention, Dara found herself amidst a multitude of detainees in a facility
characterized by suboptimal conditions—dimly lit sleeping rooms, restricted freedom of
movement, and a meager supply of food. The delayed and restricted access to legal counsel
further compounds the precariousness of her situation. These circumstances, when scrutinized
through the lens of Article 3, demand meticulous attention to ascertain whether they
constitute a breach of the fundamental prohibition against inhumane or degrading treatment.
Legal arguments will likely hinge on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human
Rights, emphasizing relevant cases, such as M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece.7
2. Extradition Process
The extradition process, a pivotal chapter in Dara's legal case, unfolds against the backdrop
of international legal norms and bilateral treaties. As part of the appellant's legal team
advocating on behalf of Dara, we contend that this process itself may have breached the
prohibitions enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR.
 Risk of Inhumane or Degrading Treatment in Calion:
Our primary contention revolves around the alleged risks Dara faced in Calion, particularly
concerning the conditions of detention and the potential for inhumane or degrading treatment.
Drawing on the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, exemplified by cases such as Soering v United
Kingdom and Chahal v United Kingdom, we argue that the extradition must not expose an
individual to a real risk of such treatment in the requesting state. This argument is rooted in
the fundamental principle that extradition should not lead to the violation of the extraditee's
human rights.
 Extradition Treaty Safeguards:
The Extradition Treaty between Lania and Calion, subject to the VCLT, becomes a crucial
point of legal scrutiny.8 We contend that the treaty provisions must be interpreted and applied
in a manner that aligns with the fundamental human rights protections, particularly those
enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR. Any extraditee, including Dara, should not be exposed to
conditions that contravene the absolute prohibition on torture, inhuman, or degrading
treatment.
In addition to the Extradition Treaty, we invoke the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
a foundational international human rights instrument.9 Article 5 of the UDHR, stating that
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or
punishment," resonates with the principles embedded in Article 3 of the ECHR. By

7
M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece [2011]
8
Extradition Treaty between Lania and Calion; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1969]
9
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

6
extension, we argue that the Extradition Treaty must align with these broader human rights
commitments.
Further, Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) reinforces the
obligation of states not to extradite individuals when there are substantial grounds to believe
that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture.10 This provision serves as an
additional layer of legal support for our argument against Dara's extradition under conditions
violating Article 3 of the ECHR.
 Failure to Adequately Assess Risks:
Another facet of our argument lies in the assertion that the extradition process failed to
adequately assess the risks Dara would face in Calion. The obligation to conduct such
assessments stems from the broader obligation under international human rights law to
prevent the return of individuals to situations where they might face violations of
fundamental rights. A thorough and fair assessment of the potential risks should have been
integral to the extradition proceedings. Building on the argument of inadequate risk
assessment, we reference the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights guidelines on the role of prosecutors in extradition proceedings.11 These guidelines
stress the importance of considering the human rights implications of extradition,
underscoring the duty to prevent individuals from being subjected to torture or other ill-
treatment.

(f) Conclusion
As part of the appellant's legal team, we have meticulously argued that the extradition process
may have transgressed the fundamental principles enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR). Our
arguments traverse the realms of the risk of inhumane or degrading treatment in Calion, the
safeguards within the Extradition Treaty, and the failure to conduct a comprehensive risk
assessment. The heart of our contention lies in the potential jeopardy to Dara's well-being
should she be subjected to conditions that violate the absolute prohibition of torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment.
The Extradition Treaty between Lania and Calion, along with broader international
instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United
Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), forms the scaffold of our legal arguments.
We posit that these treaties and declarations, to which both states are parties, impose an
obligation to interpret and apply extradition provisions in harmony with the overarching
commitment to human rights. Moreover, the failure to conduct a comprehensive risk
assessment, a critical aspect of our argument, is underscored by international guidelines,
including those by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR). These guidelines reinforce the duty to prevent individuals from being subjected to
torture or other ill-treatment, emphasizing the need for a thorough evaluation of the human
rights implications of extradition proceedings.
In conclusion, we urge the adjudicating body to scrutinize the extradition process with
unwavering attention to the human rights principles enshrined in Article 3 of the ECHR. The
fate of Dara hinges not only on legal technicalities but on the profound responsibility to
10
Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture
11
OHCHR Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors in Extradition Proceedings.

7
ensure that justice is served in accordance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by
international conventions. As custodians of justice, we implore the court to consider the
weight of our legal arguments, fortified by jurisprudence, treaties, and guidelines, and to
safeguard the principles that form the bedrock of human rights protection.
In the pursuit of justice, let the beacon of the law illuminate the path towards a verdict that
upholds the dignity and rights of every individual.