Both applicants were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami (The Party of Islamic Liberation): 'an international Islamic organisation with branches in many parts of the world, including the Middle East and Europe. It advocates the overthrow of governments and their replacement by an Islamic State in the form of a recreated Caliphate. Hizb ut-Tahrir first emerged among Palestinians in Jordan in the early 1950s. It has achieved a small, but highly committed following in a number of Middle Eastern states and has also gained in popularity among Muslims in western Europe and Indonesia. It began working in Central Asia in the mid-1990s and has developed a committed following inside Uzbekistan, and to a lesser extent in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan' (para. 7).
In its adjudication, the Court drew upon information from a report prepared by the International Crisis Group in 2003 entitled 'Radical Islam in Central Asia: Responding to Hizb ut-Tahrir'. That report mentions Hizb ut-Tahrir al-Islami's position on homosexuality:
'In the UK Hizb ut-Tahrir remains very active, particularly in
The Court declared all aspects of the complaint inadmissible except the Article 7 complaints. It unanimously held that there had been a violation of the Article 7 rights of one applicant, but no violation of the Article 7 rights of the other applicant.