Auszug aus EKMR, 01.09.1994 - 22414/93

This remedy was explained before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Vilvarajah and Others (Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, pp. 29-31, paras. 89-93, and pp. 38-40, paras. 117-127).

The Government contend that, contrary to the view of the Court in the Soering and Vilvarajah cases (Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 32-36, paras. 81-91, and Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, paras. 102-103), Article 3 of the Convention has no extra-territorial effect, but should be construed as a prohibition on a Member State exposing persons within its own jurisdiction to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.

(Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, paras. 102-103), the Government contend that the first applicant does not face a real risk of torture or persecution in the Punjab or elsewhere in India for the following reasons:.

Finally as regards the issue under Article 13 of the Convention, the Government rely on the Court's case-law in the case of Soering and Vilvarajah for the proposition that judicial review provides an adequate remedy in cases of the present kind (Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, and Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215).

Auszug aus EKMR, 01.09.1994 - 22414/93

The Government contend that, contrary to the view of the Court in the Soering and Vilvarajah cases (Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, pp. 32-36, paras. 81-91, and Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, paras. 102-103), Article 3 of the Convention has no extra-territorial effect, but should be construed as a prohibition on a Member State exposing persons within its own jurisdiction to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment.

Finally as regards the issue under Article 13 of the Convention, the Government rely on the Court's case-law in the case of Soering and Vilvarajah for the proposition that judicial review provides an adequate remedy in cases of the present kind (Eur. Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161, and Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215).

Auszug aus EKMR, 01.09.1994 - 22414/93

Reliance is placed on the Beljoudi judgment (Eur. Court H.R., Beljoudi judgment of 26 March 1992, Series A no. 234-A).

Auszug aus EKMR, 01.09.1994 - 22414/93

As regards the first applicant's complaint under Article 6 of the Convention about the fairness of remedies at his disposal, the Commission recalls its constant case-law that this provision has no application to asylum, expulsion, deportation proceedings or the like (cf. No. 8118/77, Omkarananda v. Switzerland, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25 p. 105, and No. 9990/92, Bozano v. France, Dec. 15.5.84, D.R. 39 p. 119).