Court : House of Lords
Decided on : Jun-17-2004
..... ) and (1967) (cmd 3906) ("the refugee convention") was not satisfied by either appellant. they appealed to immigration adjudicators on the alternative ground that their removal to their own countries would constitute a breach of article 9 of the european convention on human rights. article 9 contains guarantees of freedom of thought, conscience and religion. the adjudicators and first instance judges decided ..... i)." the refugee convention 32. three related matters were not discussed by the court of appeal but were raised in oral argument. the first was the link between what could constitute persecution under the refugee convention and fundamental rights under the echr. specifically, a question was raised about the extent to which human rights may inform the meaning of persecution. in ..... , para 47. the notion of jurisdiction is essentially territorial. however, the ecthr has accepted that in exceptional cases acts of contracting states performed, or producing effects, outside their territories can constitute an exercise of jurisdiction by them within the meaning of article 1 of the echr: calan v turkey (2003) 37 ehrr 238, 274-275, para 93; bankovic v belgium ( ..... state party itself may be in violation of the covenant." this is also the approach which the supreme court of canada adopted when it said in suresh v minister of citizenship and immigration  1 scr 3, paragraphs 53-54 (a torture case): "53. we discussed this issue at some length in burns  1 scr 283. in that case, the .....Tag this Judgment!