<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Austria

Case of Mohamed Bilasi-Ashri (2001 to present)

The reply from the government of Austria to the DH-S-TER maintains (at page 12) that Austria only negotiates bilateral extradition treaties with states that respect human rights and the rule of law: “The same applies to requesting states bound to rights enshrined in the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights] or the U.N. Convention against Torture…In any event, the competent court has to dismiss a request of extradition if it considers that there is a substantial risk of torture; in this case, there is no room left for diplomatic assurances.”

The Austrian authorities’ reply also details the extradition case of Mohamed Bilasi-Ashri.³  Bilasi-Ashri, who is not named in the reply, is an Egyptian asylum seeker. In 2001, the Austrian government sought diplomatic assurances of humane treatment from the Egyptian authorities in exchange for Bilasi-Ashri’s extradition. Egypt is not a party to a bilateral extradition treaty with Austria, but has ratified the U.N. Convention against Torture (CAT).

The Austrian government reply omits key facts about the Bilasi-Ashri case. In particular, it fails to mention that Bilasi-Ashri was seeking asylum at the time that the Austrian government first approved his extradition in November 2001. Expert authority on the interface between asylum and extradition has concluded that refugee status should be determined prior to any decision on an extradition request.⁴ In March 2002, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) specifically requested that Austria grant Bilasi-Ashri refugee status on the basis that he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted if returned to Egypt. Austria has thus far declined to do so. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in March and April 2002 requested that Austria not return Bilasi-Ashri until the Court reviewed his case. In the end, the Egyptian government refused to give the assurances sought by the Austrian authorities and Bilasi-Ashri was released from detention in Austria in August 2002.

The reply also fails to explain why the Austrian authorities approached the Egyptian government again in 2005, seeking the same assurances in its quest to extradite Bilasi-Ashri. On November 17, 2005, the ECtHR communicated an order for interim measures to the Austrian authorities, requesting that the government not extradite him until it reviews his application.⁵ Bilasi-Ashri’s application argued possible violations of ECHR articles 3, 5, and 6 and is pending.⁶

In the context of the well-documented risk of torture upon return to Egypt for persons suspected of association with Islamic militants⁷ and Egypt’s breach of diplomatic assurances in a similar case (see Sweden section below), Human Rights Watch is deeply concerned that Bilasi-Ashri’s extradition would place him at real risk of torture, and therefore violate Austria’s nonrefoulement obligations under the ECHR and CAT. Indeed, Bilasi-Ashri’s case discloses the very “substantial risk of torture” that the Austrian government states in its response should leave “no room” for diplomatic assurances.