The Court recalled the established principle that returning States owe a duty to ensure that persons are not subjected to treatment or punishment in violation of Article 3, regardless of the conduct of the person to be expelled, or whether that person entered the returning State legally.423 The Court observed that this principle had been applied in the context of risks emanating either directly from the State or from non-State bodies from which the State has failed to afford adequate protection.424 However, the Court stressed that, given the importance of the protection afforded by Article 3, it must retain sufficient flexibility to address other contexts that might arise.425 2 The European Regional System ing State has accepted responsibility for the provision of medical care. One of the leading cases in this regard is D v UK,422 where the applicant had been arrested upon his arrival in the UK from St. Kitts for possession of cocaine. He was subsequently sentenced to a term of imprisonment in a UK prison. While in prison, he was diagnosed as HIV-positive and suffering from AIDS, infection having occurred prior to his arrival in the UK. During his detention, he received medical treatment for his illness. However, upon his release, the authorities sought to return him to St. Kitts. D challenged the efforts to return him, alleging that if he were returned to St. Kitts, where hospital facilities were extremely limited, not only would this hasten his death, but the conditions in which he would die would be inhuman and degrading. Accordingly, the Court held that the abrupt withdrawal of medical treatment and the adverse conditions that awaited D upon his return would reduce his limited life expectancy and would amount to inhuman treatment. In this instance, the Court stressed that the State had assumed responsibility for D’s treatment, and he had become reliant on the medical and palliative care which he was receiving. Although the conditions which he would face in the receiving country were not in themselves a breach of Article 3, “his removal would expose him to a real risk of dying under most distressing circumstances and would thus amount to inhuman treatment.”426 The case does not, however, establish a precedent for finding a violation simply because the receiving State has less-developed medical care than the returning State. In Amegnigan v the Netherlands,427 the Court was careful to distinguish D v UK (1997), op. cit. See for example Chahal v UK (1996), op. cit., §80. 424 D v UK (1997), op. cit., §49. 425 Ibid. §49. 426 Ibid. §53. 427 Amegnigan v the Netherlands, no. 25629/04, judgement of 25 November 2004. 422 423 87