Chapter 16

Question 1

See Chapter 16, 16.4-5. Article 3 means that prisoners must not be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. As cultural standards change so does the threshold of severity which must be crossed for Article 3 to be violated. The Scottish case, Napier, is a good example.
Article 8 means that prisoners' rights to private life etc must be acknowledges by the authorities. Of course, Article 8 is a qualified right. Prisoners retain all their Convention rights (lawful imprisonment is compatible with Article 5(1)(a)) but whether interferences with Article 8 rights are proportionate will reflect the security and other needs of the prison authorities.

Simple answer is no.
The Convention case law on abortion is complex (see Chapter 16, 16.20). A mother does not have a right to choose (under Article 8 and private life) any more than a restrictive abortion law which failed to protect the mother from serious risks to life and health would be compatible with Article 8 and also Article 2 and 3. States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation on this, perhaps the most controversial of all issues.
Perhaps the most important issue (see Tysiac v Poland) is that states (within the extremes noted above) should have proper legal procedures by means of which the complex issues can be properly weighed.

Consider 16.23-26.
A 'real risk' of torture etc (prohibited under Article 3) in the receiving state is sufficient to prevent a deportation.
But the principle does not apply in same way as regards risks of violation of other Convention rights.
The House of Lords, reviewing Court of Human Rights decisions in Ullah, requires the real risk to be of a 'flagrant' breach when other articles, such as Articles 8, 9 and 10 are involved.
Regarding a risk of an unfair trial (Article 6) the courts have said that there should not be a deportation if the real risk is to a trial based on evidence obtained by torture.