PART 2: How to Bring a Case to the Court be exposed to the so-called “death row phenomenon”, which he alleged constituted treatment contrary to that Article. His application to the Commission for interim measures was accepted, and the Commission indicated to the United Kingdom Government that it would be advisable not to extradite the applicant to the United States while the proceedings were pending in Strasbourg.67 The United Kingdom Government complied with the interim measure and the Court subsequently held that the United Kingdom would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if it were to extradite the applicant to the United States because the circumstances of death row would represent treatment prohibited by that Article.68 Without the interim measure, Mr. Soering might have been extradited before the Convention institutions had had a chance to examine the application, and the risk of ill-treatment as alleged by the applicant may have materialised. Rule 39 has also been invoked in the case of Shamayev and 12 Others v. Georgia and Russia,69 which concerned the extradition of a number of Chechens from Georgia to Russia. The Court concluded that in the light of the extremely alarming phenomenon of persecution – in the form of threats, harassment, detention, enforced disappearances and killings – the extradition to Russia would constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.70 Interim measures were also applied in the case of D. v. the United Kingdom,71 which concerned the removal of a person suffering from AIDS from the United Kingdom. The Court held that the United Kingdom would be in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if it were to proceed with the removal of the applicant. The Court will be much less inclined to issue an interim measure if the country of destination in an expulsion case is another Contracting Party. This is because there is a presumption that the receiving State will comply with its Convention obligations and also because of the fact that the Court will be able to scrutinise any alleged failures by that state to uphold its Convention obligations.72 Nevertheless, and as was shown in the case of Shamayev and 12 Others v. Georgia and Russia,73 the fact that the receiving country is a Contracting Party will not necessarily prevent the Court from indicating interim measures if it perceives that the risk to an applicant is serious. 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 Ibid., § 4. Ibid., § 111. Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, 12 April 2005, § 4. Ibid., §§ 356–368. D. v. The United Kingdom, no. 30240/96, 2 May 1997, § 54. See A.G. v. Sweden, no. 27776/95, Commission decision of 26 October 1995. Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, 12 April 2005. 45