003-2367733-2542763

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   19.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   27 May 2008   The European Court of Human Rights will be holding a public hearing in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on Tuesday 27 May 2008 at 9.30 a.m. (local time) to deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of N. v. the United Kingdom (application no. 26565/05).   The press release and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).     N. v. the United Kingdom The case concerns an application brought by N., a Ugandan national who was born in 1974 and lives in Clapham (London).   She entered the United Kingdom on 28 March 1998 under an assumed name. She was seriously ill, and was admitted to hospital.   On 31 March 1998 solicitors lodged an asylum application on her behalf, claiming that she had been ill-treated and raped by the National Resistance Movement in Uganda because of her association with the Lord’s Resistance Army, and asserting that she was in fear of her life and safety if she were returned.   By November 1998, the applicant was diagnosed as having two AIDS defining illnesses, and as being extremely advanced from an HIV point of view; her CD4 count was 20 cells/mm³, reflecting considerable immunosuppression. The report stated that, without active treatment, her prognosis was “appalling” and put her life expectancy at less than 12 months should she be forced to return to Uganda, where there was “no prospect of her getting adequate therapy”.   The Secretary of State refused the asylum claim on 28 March 2001, finding that her claims were not credible, that there was no evidence that the Ugandan authorities were interested in the applicant and that treatment of AIDS in Uganda was comparable to any other African country, and all the major anti-viral drugs were available in Uganda at highly subsidised prices. The applicant appealed.   On 10 July 2002 her appeal was dismissed concerning the asylum refusal, but allowed in relation to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The Secretary of State appealed against the Article 3 finding, contending that all the AIDS drugs available under the National Health Service in the United Kingdom could also be obtained locally in Uganda, and most were also available at a reduced price through UN-funded projects and from bilateral AIDS donor funded programmes. The applicant’s return would not, therefore, be to a “complete absence of medical treatment”, and so would not subject her to “acute physical and mental suffering”. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal on 29 November 2002 and found: “Medical treatment is available in Uganda for the [applicant’s] condition even though the Tribunal accept that the level of medical provision in Uganda falls below that in the United Kingdom.”   The applicant appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.   The applicant maintains that to return her to Uganda would cause her suffering and early death amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment. She relies on Article 3 of the Convention.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 22 July 2005. On 22 May 2007 the Chamber relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, under Article 30[1] of the Convention. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 26 September 2007.     ***   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects.