Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T07:28:26.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A WRONG TURNING: ARTICLE 3 ECHR AND PROPORTIONALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2006

Stephanie Palmer
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

THE right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is guaranteed in absolute terms in Article 3 of the ECHR. This article imposes on a State both a negative and a positive obligation. In recent months, the House of Lords has considered cases raising both obligations pursuant to Article 3. This paper will examine first the nature of Article 3 and these obligations, second the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of State responsibility, and finally the recent decisions of the House of Lords in R. (on the application of Adam, Limbuela and Tesema) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2006