The applicants are asking the Court to provide the remedies in order that their fundamental human rights are not infringed. In reality they are asking the Court to declare that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board be revoked and thus they would not be deported back to their country. They are not contesting the Board's decision on the usual criteria - i.e. that the decision was flawed by non-observance of the rules of natural justice but because they are arguing that their deportation wouldconstitute an infringement of the human rights and freedoms.
In the text European Human Rights Law - Text and Materials one can find some useful comments in this regard (page 151 et sequitur);
An increasingly important and difficult question for the European Human Rights system concerns attempts by a contracting state to deport an applicant to a non contracting state where, the applicant claims, he or she will be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court first considered this issue in Soering vs United Kingdom (7th July, 1989) in which the UK sought to extradite Soering to Virginia in the US to stand trial for murder. The Court held that the extraditing state has to have some responsibility under the convention for the potential subsequent maltreatmentof extradited individuals. For a state to knowingly surrender a fugitive to another state where there were substantial ground for believing that there would be a danger of being subjected to tortureor inhuman or degrading treatment however heinous the crime would plainly be contrary to the spiritand intendment of Article 3.'
As movement about the world becomes easier and crime takes on alarger international dimension it is increasingly in the interest of all nations that suspected offenders who flee abroad should be brought to justice. Conversely the establishment of safe havens forfugitives would not only result in danger for the state obliged to harbour the protected person butalso tend to undermine the foundations of extradition. It is not normal for Convention institutionsto pronounce on the existence or otherwise of potential violations of the convention. However wherean applicant claims that a decision to extradite him would, if implemented be contrary to Article 3by reason of its foreseeable consequences in the requesting country, a departure from this principle is necessary in view of the serious and irreparable nature of the alleged suffering risked, in order to ensure the effectiveness of the safeguard provided by the Article.
In sum the decisionby a contracting state to extradite a fugitive may give rise to an issue under Article 3 and henceengage the responsibility if that State under the convention where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned if extradited faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman and degrading treatment in the requesting country. The establishment of such responsibility inevitably involves an assessment of the conditions in the requesting country against thestandards of Article 3 of the Convention. Nonetheless there is no question of adjudication on or establishing the responsibility of the receiving country whether under general international law, under the convention or otherwise. In so far as any liability under the convention is or may be incurredit is liability incurred by the extraditing Contracting state by reason of its having taken actionwhich has a direct consequence the exposure of an individual to proscribed ill-treatment.
The Court is satisfied that the political and human rights situation in Armenia has improved considerably since the events mentioned by applicants. Armenia is now a member of the Council of Europe and this is sufficient guarantee that human rights are observed in that country. The Court is also satisfied that the evaluation of the Refugees Appeals Board was correct since applicants failed to prove otherwise.
For these reasons the Court accepts respondents' pleas and rejects applicants' claims.