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.

Question 2

• 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.

Question 3

• 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.