expulsion. In this instance, the Court concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing in the existence of a real risk. The European Regional System 2 This approach to assessing the level of risk was applied in Vilvarajah v UK,416 in which the Court noted that its “examination of the existence of a risk of illtreatment… at the relevant time must necessarily be a rigorous one in view of the absolute character of this provision and the fact that it enshrines one of the fundamental values of the democratic societies.”417 That case concerned an expulsion which had already occurred, thus the relevant time for assessing the level of risk was the time when the expulsion occurred. On the other hand, where an expulsion has not yet occurred, the relevant time for assessing the risk would be the date on which the Court considers the case, therefore evidence which had come to light since the case was first reviewed could be considered.418 In Chahal v UK, the applicant was threatened with expulsion because he was suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism. The Court stated that, while it was aware of the difficulties facing States in protecting communities from acts of terrorism, the European Convention prohibits torture (and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) in absolute terms, irrespective of the victim’s conduct. Accordingly, national interests could not override the interests of the individual where substantial grounds exist for believing that he would be subjected to ill-treatment if expelled.419 In Jabari v Turkey,420 Mrs. Jabari alleged that, were she to be expelled from Turkey to Iran, she would face a real risk of torture due to the nature of the penal sanctions imposed upon women for adultery, which included stoning. As noted above, a State has a duty to protect individuals from acts contrary to Article 3 when returning that individual, even when the receiving State imposes a sanction which is considered “lawful” under its domestic law. In this instance, the Court held that Mrs. Jabari faced a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3.421 The Court has developed the scope of the obligation not to expel persons to States where they may face ill-treatment to include ill-treatment caused by a lack of adequate medical care in the receiving State, in cases where the return Vilvarajah and Others v UK (1991), op. cit. Ibid, §108, citing Soering v UK (1989), op. cit., §88. 418 Chahal v UK (1996), op. cit., §97. 419 Ibid. §78–9. 420 Jabari v Turkey (2000), op. cit. 421 Ibid. §41–42. 416 417 86