Deportation to Algeria of a convicted of terrorist acts. There is no risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. No infringement of Article 3 of the ECHR.
JUDGMENT
Α.Μ. v. France 29.04.2019 (no. 12148/18)
SUMMARY
The case concerns the applicant’s planned deportation to Algeria after he was convicted in France in
2015 for participating in acts of terrorism and was permanently banned from French territory.
The Court found that the general situation in Algeria as regards the treatment of individuals linked to
terrorism did not in itself preclude the applicant’s deportation.
The Court agreed with the conclusion of the French courts. It found that their assessment had been
appropriate and sufficiently substantiated by domestic data and information from other reliable and
objective sources.
The Court took the view that there were no serious, proven grounds to believe that if he were
returned to Algeria the applicant would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of
Article 3 of the Convention and it found that his deportation would not entail a violation of that
provision.
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, A.M., is an Algerian national who was born in 1985. He is currently confined to a
locality in France under a compulsory residence order (since September 2018).
He settled in France in 2008 and obtained a 10-year residence permit.
On 25 September 2015 he was sentenced by the Paris Criminal Court to a six-year prison term for his
participation in a criminal conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, together with an order of
permanent exclusion from France. The judgment indicated that the applicant had been, at least in
2012, wanted by the Algerian authorities.
On 21 February 2018 an order was issued by the Prefect of the Loire indicating his destination
country as Algeria. It was notified to him two days later.
On 5 March 2018 A.M. lodged an application for urgent proceedings with the Lyons Administrative
Court to obtain the immediate suspension of his deportation to Algeria. The judge rejected his
application on the ground that he had not produced any specific, recent or detailed evidence to
show clearly that he would be exposed, in Algeria, to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the
Convention.
On 12 March 2018 A.M. sought the indication of an interim measure by the European Court of
Human Rights, under Rule 39, to have his deportation to Algeria suspended. On 13 March 2018 the
Court granted his request and instructed the Government not to enforce the measure until the end
of the proceedings before it.
On 19 March 2018, A.M., who was then being held in administrative detention, submitted an asylum
application to obtain the status of refugee. The French Authority for the protection of refugees and
stateless persons (OFPRA) rejected that application. On 4 July 2018 the National Asylum Court
(CNDA) delivered a judgment rejecting an appeal by A.M. against the OFPRA’s decision. The
applicant appealed on points of law.
On 27 July 2018 the Lille Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the prefect’s order
indicating the destination country, on the ground that there was no evidence that A.M. would be
exposed to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if deported to Algeria. A.M. appealed
against that judgment.
On 10 September 2018 A.M.’s administrative detention ended and he was confined to a locality in
France under a compulsory residence order.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 3
The Court observed that since 2015 there had been many institutional and legislative developments
in Algeria. It took note in particular of the revision of the Algerian Constitution in 2016 and the
better safeguarding of a certain number of fundamental rights and freedoms. That same year the
Intelligence and Security Department (DRS) was disbanded. It had been designated in 2008 by the
United Nations Committee against Torture as potentially being responsible for many cases of cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court further observed that, since 2016, the Directorate
General of National Security (DGSN) had regularly organised human rights training for police officers.
The Court found that most of the reports available on Algeria for 2017 and 2018 no longer
mentioned any allegations that individuals linked to terrorism had been tortured. Human rights
organisations had declared in 2017 to the British Embassy in Algiers that they had no evidence of
treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. The Court emphasised, on this point, that A.M did not seem to be able to establish that any third party in a situation comparable to his own had
actually been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in 2017 or 2018.
The Court further observed that the French Government had provided it with a detailed list of
deportations to Algeria that had been ordered and implemented against Algerian nationals on
account of their links to terrorist or radical Islamist factions. None of those deportees had reported
ill-treatment on the part of the Algerian authorities.
The Court also found noteworthy the fact that a number of domestic courts of Council of Europe
member States, after an in-depth examination of the general situation in Algeria and the individual
situations of those concerned, had recently concluded that there would be no violation of Article 3
of the Convention in the event of the return to that country of individuals linked to terrorism.
While certain features of Algerian criminal procedure could possibly raise doubts as to the guarantee
in that country of the right to a fair trial, they did not in themselves show that there was a general
risk of ill-treatment under Article 3 for any given category of individuals.
The Court concluded that the general situation as regards individuals linked to terrorism in Algeria
did not, in itself, preclude the applicant’s deportation.
As regards the allegation that the applicant might be wanted by the authorities as a result of his links
with a jihadi cell in Annaba, the Court noted that the judgment of 25 September 2015 clearly
established that this had been the case, at least for the year 2012. However, there was no evidence
that the applicant was still wanted for the same offences, over seven years after they had been
committed.
Moreover, the French Government had provided the Court with a note verbale from the Algerian
authorities dated 28 November 2018 stating that A.M. did not face criminal proceedings in Algeria
and showing that he had no criminal record. In any event, the Court found that the Annaba jihadi
cell in question had been dismantled. Its members had been arrested, convicted and then released,
without claiming to have been ill-treated, even though they had been operating within Algeria.
Therefore there was no evidence to suggest that the Algerian authorities showed any particular
interest in the applicant. Algeria had never sought his extradition from France or requested a copy of
the judgment convicting him for terrorism offences. There was no hard evidence to substantiate the
allegation that he was still wanted by the Algerian authorities. While it was still possible that A.M.’s
terrorist background might justify his being placed under surveillance on his return to Algeria, or that
his return might even entail criminal proceedings, such measures would not constitute prohibited
treatment under Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court found, in conclusion, that A.M. had not provided any indications to show that, if he were
returned to Algeria, he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3.
The Court thus agreed with the findings of the OFPRA, the CNDA and the Administrative Courts of
Lyons and Lille. It found that their assessment had been appropriate and sufficiently substantiated
by domestic data and information from other reliable and objective sources. Taking account of the
general situation in Algeria, neither the applicant’s past links with a jihadi cell in Annaba nor the fact
that the authorities were aware of his conviction sufficed to persuade the Court that he ran a real
risk of being exposed to treatment prohibited by Article 3 on his return to that country.
The Court explained that this conclusion was not undermined by the absence of diplomatic
assurances from Algeria, such guarantees not being necessary. It had only been in the context of its
examination of the applicant’s request for an interim measure that the Court had asked the French
Government to obtain precise assurances from Algeria that he would be not be subjected to
treatment in breach of the Convention after his arrival there. At that stage, the Court had not yet
been able to proceed with an in-depth examination of the situation in Algeria or A.M.’s individual
situation.
The Court took the view that there were no series or proven grounds to believe that if he were
returned to Algeria the applicant would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of
Article 3 of the Convention. It thus found that his deportation would not entail a violation of Article 3
of the Convention(echrcaselaw.com editing)
