No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Iraq)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE . She is from GPE and is of GPE denomination . She was once married , but divorced her husband in DATE , after which she lived with their son , born in DATE , in GPE while her former husband moved to GPE .

The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and applied for a residence permit DATE and for asylum on DATE . She stated that she and her son had left GPE on DATE and had then stayed with relatives in GPE , GPE , for DATE . In GPE she had left behind her son , because she had not been able to afford his trip . Later , her former husband had come to GPE and brought the son back with him to GPE . To the NORP authorities the applicant submitted an NORP citizenship certificate , an identity card , divorce documents and a membership card for NORP regarding her and her son .

Assisted by legal counsel , the applicant stated in essence the following in support of her application . Her main reason for leaving GPE was the generally insecure situation for NORP in GPE , which had affected her and her family personally . Her fears had led to her son going to school only sporadically during DATE . Moreover , at DATE her mother had received a threatening phone call from someone who had wanted to contact the applicant , presumably to forcibly remarry her with another man . If they did not comply , the applicant understood that her family would have to leave the neighbourhood . They had taken the threats very seriously and she had moved immediately with her son to her grandmother ’s house in the LOC neighbourhood of GPE , where they had stayed for DATE . The applicant further stated that her only remaining relative in GPE was her mother .

On DATE ORG ( Migrationsverket ) rejected the application and ordered the applicant ’s deportation to GPE . ORG held that she had not proved her identity , but that she had made it plausible that she was from GPE . It further considered that the situation in GPE as such did not constitute grounds for asylum . While noting that NORP were an exposed minority , their general situation did not suffice either for an individual be granted protection , but his or her personal circumstances would have to be assessed . ORG went on to state that the applicant had not submitted any written evidence in support of her allegations of persecution . Furthermore , she had received a threat on CARDINAL occasion and it had not been shown that the person threatening her had referred to her religious beliefs . Nor was there any other indication that she had been ill - treated on account of those beliefs or that she had received other threats before leaving GPE . ORG then noted that the applicant ’s brother , who had also applied for asylum in GPE , had had his application rejected and his deportation to GPE ordered and that , consequently , the applicant would likely not lack a male network upon return to GPE . In conclusion , the ORG found that she had not made it probable that she was at personal risk of being subjected to serious ill - treatment if she returned to GPE .

The applicant ’s brother , who had arrived in GPE on DATE , had his application for a residence permit rejected by ORG on DATE .

NORP The applicant appealed , adding the following to her story . NORP , being the smallest and most vulnerable minority in GPE , were subjected to extortion , kidnappings and murder . QUANTITY women and children had been forced to convert to NORP , often after having been assaulted and raped . The NORP were not a large enough community to be able to protect and support each other and there was no particular region where they could settle safely . This was enough to show that she was in need of protection . The applicant asserted that the threat against her had to be seen against this background . Her whole existence had been marked by the threatening atmosphere and demands directed at non - NORP women and in particular the NORP . Her situation had been further aggravated by the fact that she is a single woman without a social network in GPE . Her mother had had the intention of leaving the country as well , but the applicant had no information on her whereabouts . Furthermore , in GPE the applicant had met a NORP man from GPE together with whom she now lived . This situation would never be accepted in GPE . Also , when she had talked about her new relationship in GPE , her family had reacted very negatively and had virtually frozen her out .

On DATE ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) upheld the decision of ORG . The court acknowledged the difficult situation for NORP in GPE and stated that , consequently , a lower threshold was applied in assessing the individual risks than in NORP cases in general . The general situation for NORP did not suffice of itself to be granted protection , however ; an assessment of the applicant ’s individual circumstances was necessary . In the absence of written evidence , the court went on to examine the statements made by the applicant . It considered that the threat received concerning forced marriage was primarily related to the general security situation in GPE at the time . In DATE since the applicant had left the country , the security situation had improved . While the NORP remained disadvantaged , there was no sign that she was still being searched for in GPE . Nor was there anything to indicate that her mother ’s possible exile had been caused by continued threats . The court further found that the negative reaction of the applicant ’s family to her new relationship did not imply a need of protection . In that connection , it further noted that the asylum appeal lodged by her brother , who had not turned his back on her , had been rejected on DATE . Thus , she could return to GPE with him and thereby have a social network in the country .

On DATE ORG ( Migrations - överdomstolen ) refused the applicant leave to appeal . On DATE it refused leave to appeal also in the applicant ’s brother ’s case .

Subsequently , the applicant , as well as her brother , claimed that there were impediments to the enforcement of their deportation orders . Their petition mainly concerned the brother ’s period of active duty in the NORP army , during which he had gained knowledge of important people in the army and their illegal actions . This knowledge would put both the applicant and her brother at risk if they were returned . The applicant further claimed that her mother had been kidnapped .

On DATE ORG rejected the petition , finding that no new circumstances justifying a reconsideration had been presented . It considered that the claims made in relation to the brother did not in any way show that there were threats against him or the applicant . The allegation that the mother had been kidnapped was actually new , but it was unclear when this incident was supposed to have happened and there was nothing to conclude that the possible kidnapping had any personal connection to the situation of the applicant and her brother . The applicant did not appeal against the ORG ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant submitted a letter to ORG , which was perceived by ORG as a new petition for reconsideration . The applicant stated that , if she were forced to return to GPE , she would have to do so without her current partner or her brother , who were both in GPE . Her partner had been issued a visa to GPE , as he was born in GPE , and could not return to GPE . Consequently , they would be separated , because she could not travel to GPE since she lacked a passport and would not be granted a visa . The applicant further asserted that she had no relatives in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to reconsider the case . Although the fact that the applicant ’s partner had been granted a visa to GPE was considered to be new , ORG stated that this fact did not constitute a lasting impediment to the enforcement of the deportation order . The applicant did not appeal against the ORG ’s decision .

The respondent Government have submitted the following notes to the ORG , taken from the files of ORG . The applicant ’s mother was living with relatives and friends in GPE . When the applicant left GPE , her grandmother and cousins were living in the LOC neighbourhood of GPE . In GPE , the applicant has been living in the same flat as her brother and her partner from DATE . Her partner left GPE in DATE to be reunited with his family in GPE , whereas her brother is still in GPE . Furthermore , in reply to the ORG ’s request for information in the case , ORG had stated that it was likely that the applicant had a large number of relatives left in GPE .

The applicant has given the following additional account to the ORG . Following her divorce in DATE , she went to live with her parents and her brother . Her father , under whose protection she was living , died in DATE . Her grandmother , with whom she had briefly lived after the threatening telephone call , died in DATE . To her knowledge , she has no relatives left in GPE , cousins or others . Several relatives are living abroad , in GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . Her sister is living in GPE . After the applicant and her brother had left GPE , their mother went to live with a NORP family in GPE , from whom she rented a room . In DATE , the applicant and her brother received information about their mother ’s disappearance . The family with whom the mother had lived called the applicant ’s uncle in GPE and said that they did not think that she had left voluntarily . A police report , sent to the uncle only in DATE , states that the report was filed on DATE by the mother ’s landlord , who had told the police that the mother had been missing since DATE . The applicant does not know why the landlord did not file a report earlier or why he did not state that her mother had been missing for DATE . The applicant is still unaware of what has happened to her mother following her disappearance . However , given the time that has passed without any contact with her , she assumes that she is dead . The applicant is still in a relationship with the man she met in GPE , although he is now living in GPE . The people who disowned her because of that relationship were her relatives in GPE , with the exception of her brother . The brother married a relative , who is a NORP citizen , on DATE . He left GPE and applied at the ORG in GPE for a NORP residence permit based on his marriage . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted him a residence permit until DATE .

The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in LAW ( Utlänningslagen , GPE ) .

An alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE ( LAW , LAW CARDINAL of the Act ) . The term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

NORP Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , such a permit may be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen ömmande omständigheter ) to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . Special consideration should be given , inter alia , to the alien ’s health status . According to the preparatory works ( Government PERSON , pp . CARDINAL ) , life - threatening physical or mental illness for which no treatment can be given in the alien ’s home country could constitute a reason for the grant of a residence permit .

As regards the enforcement of a deportation or expulsion order , account has to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , LAW ) .

NORP Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has acquired legal force . This is the case where new circumstances have emerged which indicate that there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) . If a residence permit can not be granted under these criteria , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not having done so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , section CARDINAL ) .

Matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances : ORG , ORG and ORG .

A deportation or expulsion order may DATE save for a few exceptions of no relevance to the present case DATE be enforced only when it has acquired legal force . Thus , appeals to the courts against ORG decision in ordinary proceedings determining the right to asylum and a residence permit have an automatic suspensive effect . If the alien subsequent to the ordinary proceedings having acquired legal force lodges a petition under LAW , sections DATE , it is up to ORG to decide whether to suspend the enforcement ( inhibition ) on the basis of the new circumstances presented . Accordingly , such a petition has no automatic suspensive effect , nor does an appeal to the courts against the ORG ’s decision taken under LAW ( no appeal lie against a decision pursuant to section CARDINAL ) .

In its Report on Human Rights in GPE : DATE , published in DATE , ORG of ORG UNAMI ) gave , inter alia , the following summary ( at pp . vii - viii ) :

“ Violence and armed violence continued to take their toll on civilians in GPE . According to ORG , CARDINAL civilians were killed and CARDINAL were injured in DATE , resulting in a total of CARDINAL killed and CARDINAL injured for DATE . According to ORG , CARDINAL civilians were killed and CARDINAL were injured in DATE , resulting in a total of CARDINAL civilians who were killed and CARDINAL who were injured for DATE . These figures indicate that the trend of DATE of a reduction in the numbers of civilian casualties has reversed and that the impact of violence on civilians looks set to increase in the near to medium future . Terrorists and armed groups continued to favour asymmetric tactics that deliberately target civilians or were carried out heedless of the impact on civilians .

Political instability and regional developments continued to impact negatively on the security situation in GPE , with its concomitant toll on civilians . Although the Government takes the impact of violence on civilians extremely seriously and has taken measures to enhance security , more needs to be done to ensure the proper coordination of financial , medical and other forms of support for the victims of violence .

Women continue to suffer from domestic and other forms of violence , and to face discrimination and other barriers in accessing economic , social and educational opportunities . The law continues to permit ‘ honour’ as a mitigating factor in crimes of violence committed against women and family members . There is still no effective system of shelters and coordinated care for the victims of domestic violence , and services available to victims remain inadequate . The family protection bill remains stalled in ORG . Women ’s representation at a senior level in political , governmental and judicial institutions remains low at the federal , governorate and district levels .

GPE ’s various ethnic and religious groups continued to be targeted by violence . In particular , members of the NORP community were subjected to various acts of violence , including kidnapping , murder , harassment , and other threats . Members of religious communities , including GPE , NORP and ORG , also suffered threats and acts of violence . Shi’a pilgrims attending various religious festivals and activities similarly came under attack in various parts of the country . ”

In regard to the GPE region , the report stated ( at p. ix ) :

“ The overall human rights situation in LOC continued to improve , although challenges remain , including concerns over respect for freedoms of assembly and expression , and the protection of journalists . GPE experienced almost no insurgent violence , although civilians living in areas close to the international borders continued to suffer from the effects of cross - border shelling and military operations conducted by foreign forces .

Progress was made towards full implementation of the Law on Combatting Violence Against Women , with the establishment of a high level inter - ministerial committee to oversee implementation of the law , and the adoption of a DATE plan to combat violence against women , along with other reforms and initiatives . ”

In his report of CARDINAL DATE , ORG ) Secretary - General on the human rights of internally displaced persons , Mr PERSON , noted the following ( at paras . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) after a visit to GPE in DATE :

” Despite improvements in the overall security situation since DATE , the situation in GPE is still characterized by continued indiscriminate attacks against civilians , including religious and ethnic minorities , arbitrary arrests , alleged ill - treatment while in detention , and sexual and gender - based violence . Moreover , impunity is reported as being widespread , while access to justice is largely absent due to fear of reprisals , lack of capacity among rule of law institutions , corruption and lack of awareness of accountability mechanisms .

In GPE of Iraq , while the security situation is considerably better than in the rest of the country , specific concerns have been raised with regard to , inter alia : serious violations of the rights of suspects and detainees by KRG [ ORG ] authorities ; sexual and gender - based violence ; and the impact of anti - terrorism legislation on human rights , including specifically the practice of keeping persons in de facto unlimited administrative detention . ”

The GPE Border Agency GPE Operational Guidance Note of DATE noted ( at paras . CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) :

“ Violence , albeit still far above what ought to be tolerable , has levelled off in DATE . NORP security forces have taken the lead in several important operations . Recently , they have withstood CARDINAL noteworthy tests : the departure of CARDINAL GPE troops since DATE ; the DATE parliamentary elections ; and , over DATE , political uncertainty prompted by institutional deadlock . If insurgents remain as weak as they are and find no fresh opportunity to exploit political fractures , security forces operating at less - than - optimal levels still should face no serious difficulty in confronting them .

It has been reported that although oversight by the MOI [ ORG ] and ORG [ ORG ] has increased , problems continue with all security forces , arising from sectarian divisions , corruption , and unwillingness to serve outside the areas in which personnel were recruited . ... ”

In its DATE report , ORG noted , inter alia , the following :

“ While there have been some improvements in terms of security for GPE ’s ethnic and religious groups , their situation remains precarious . During DATE , ORG continued to receive reports of attacks directed at persons on account of their ethnic or religious affiliations . ORG has particular concerns regarding the situation of the NORP community in the disputed areas , NORP families that migrated from GPE to GPE following attacks against the community in DATE , and the rising tension between the ORG and the NORP minorities in GPE . Figures collected by ORG indicate that members of minority groups are still leaving their homes in many areas on account of insecurity and acts of violence perpetrated against their communities , compounded by lack of access to basic services and poor economic opportunities . ”

This report does not contain any information on the NORP community , but ORG ’s DATE report , published in DATE , noted the following about their situation in GPE ( at p. CARDINAL ) :

“ The numbers of NORP families have fallen to CARDINAL in LOC due to migration of members of the group . Some community representatives informed ORG that they do not face any threat or persecution in LOC and they are supported by the Government , but most are migrating for economic reasons . ”

ORG described the NORP in GPE thus ( GPE ’s Minorities : Participation in Public Life , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) :

“ ORG , whose religion is CARDINAL of the oldest surviving Gnostic religions in the world , have existed in GPE for DATE . Many of the CARDINAL present in LOC once lived in GPE , but DATE , their numbers there have dwindled to CARDINAL people , mainly through displacement , but also through killings . Traditionally , many ORG have worked as goldsmiths ; the resulting perception that they are wealthy has contributed to their being targeted for kidnapping . They are forbidden by their faith to marry outside the religion , which has contributed to their reduced numbers since DATE . ”

In regard to minority women , ORG gave , inter alia , the following account ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL ) :

“ For minority women , the situation again follows the general trend , with the added security risk that comes from being from a minority . CARDINAL per cent of respondents to the GPE [ ORG ] survey said that they believed that women needed to hide their religious affiliation , either by not wearing their religious symbols or traditional makeup , by covering their heads even if they are secular or non - NORP , or by not speaking in their traditional languages ... . A number of PERSON , PERSON and NORP women stated that they avoid speaking their language ( e.g. NORP , NORP ) or wearing clothes that indicate their community belonging when in public . Non - NORP minority women in particular complain of pressure to modify their dress . ...

Overall , CARDINAL per cent of respondents surveyed said that they thought that women felt safe when leaving the home . PERSON - QUANTITY women have reported being pressured to convert to NORP ; they also report physical and verbal abuse on the street from university staff , or , if in employment , for not covering their heads and not adhering to an NORP dress code . ”

On DATE the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) issued the latest ORG from GPE ( hereafter “ the LAW ” ) . The situation for members of religious minorities is summarised as follows ( at p. CARDINAL ) :

GPE are likely to be in need of international refugee protection on the grounds of religion , ( imputed ) political opinion or membership in a particular social group .

NORP converts are likely to be in need of international refugee protection in the whole country , including GPE . ”

In regard to minority women , ORG states ( at p. CARDINAL ) :

“ Minority women are likely the most vulnerable section of NORP society , facing violence and discrimination from a variety of actors on account both of their gender and their religious affiliation . Minority women ’s freedom of movement and freedom to express their religious identity through the way they dress has been severely restricted by ongoing threats of violence and growing religious intolerance . This , in turn , restricts their access to health services , employment and education . ”

ORG give the following information relating to the NORP community ( at p. CARDINAL ) :

“ The NORP - Mandaean religion is a gnostic religion with PERSON ORG as a central figure and considered a prophet . Its adherents can not marry outside the faith and they do not accept converts . Before DATE , there were CARDINAL NORP living in GPE many of whom were well educated and worked as doctors , engineers , dentists and jewelers . After the fall of the former regime , NORP and Shi’ite armed groups , as well as criminals , have singled out ORG on the basis of their religion , profession and ( perceived ) wealth . Some ORG elders , who traditionally wear long beards , have reportedly been attacked by Shi’ite militants who have mistaken them for strictly observant NORP or NORP . ORG are particularly vulnerable to attacks for several reasons . Unlike other groups in GPE , the pacifist NORP did not form militias to defend themselves . Further , the already small community lives mainly in scattered groups . Their disputed status as “ people of the book ” , which under the DATE would provide them with a level of protection , failed to dissuade extremist groups from targeting them . As a result of general violence and targeted attacks , large numbers of NORP fled GPE , mainly to GPE and GPE . Currently , CARDINAL NORP remain in GPE . Most of them live in GPE and southern GPE , including in LOC , PERSON and GPE . According to a spokesman for the NORP community , there are currently CARDINAL GPE families in southern GPE , mostly in the Governorate of PERSON .

Since DATE , ORG have been subjected to threats , abductions and killings . There are also reports of forced conversions to ORG and some ORG have reportedly been killed for refusing to do so . Most religious leaders have either been killed or fled the country . CARDINAL ORG were reportedly killed and CARDINAL injured in DATE in what were reported to be targeted attacks . In DATE , additional kidnappings and killings were reported by ORG . NORP - Mandaean goldsmiths reportedly continued to receive threats and suffer from attacks . Even in cases of kidnapping for ransom , the perpetrators may deliberately single out ORG due to their vulnerable status as a religious minority , considered “ infidel ” . There have been reports of kidnapped ORG killed or remaining missing despite the payment of ransom .

In addition to targeted violence perpetrated against ORG , the community has also suffered from social marginalization and religious discrimination . There are no schools in southern and central GPE that teach children in their language , LANGUAGE , and children are obliged to undertake Qur’anic studies at public schools . LOC women are pressured to observe the hijab in public in order to avoid physical and verbal abuse , although their religion does not require veiling . Reportedly , NORP - Mandaean women have been pressured to marry outside their faith in contradiction with their own religious customs and have been pressured to convert to ORG . ”

In its ORG for DATE , published on DATE , ORG summarises the religious situation in GPE thus :

“ The constitution provides for religious freedom and the government generally respected religious freedom in practice . The trend in the government ’s respect for religious freedom did not change significantly during DATE . The constitution recognizes ORG as the official religion , mandates that ORG be considered a source of legislation , and states that no law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of ORG . However , it also states that no law may contradict principles of democracy or the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in the constitution . The constitution guarantees freedom from intellectual , political , and religious coercion . Some apparent contradictions between the constitution and other legal provisions were tested in court during DATE ; the courts upheld full legal protection for religious freedom in those cases . Other contradictions remain untested . Officials sometimes misused their authority to limit freedom for religious groups other than their own . However , the government continued to call for tolerance and acceptance of all religious minorities , provided security for places of worship such as churches , FAC , shrines , and religious pilgrimage sites and routes , and funded the construction and renovation of places of worship for some religious minorities . ORG in GPE ( ORG ) and other terrorist and illegally armed groups commited violent attacks that restricted the ability of all believers to practice their religion .

There were reports of societal abuses and discrimination based on religious affiliation , belief , or practice . Sectarian violence occurred throughout the country , although to a lesser extent in the NORP LOC ( IKR ) , and restricted religious freedom . No reliable statistics on religiously motivated violence were available . The overwhelming majority of mass casualty terrorist attacks targeted NORP . A combination of sectarian hiring practices , corruption , targeted attacks , and the uneven application of the law had a detrimental economic effect on minority non - NORP communities , and contributed to the departure of NORP from the country . ”

Designating GPE as a “ country of particular concern ” for DATE running , ORG on ORG , in its DATE Report , published on DATE , made the following findings :

“ Over DATE the NORP government has made efforts to increase security for religious sites and worshippers , provide a stronger voice for GPE ’s smallest minorities in parliament , and revise secondary school textbooks to portray minorities in a more positive light . Nevertheless , the government of GPE continues to tolerate systematic , ongoing , and egregious religious freedom violations , including violent religiously - motivated attacks . Violence against NORP civilians continued in DATE at approximately the same level as in DATE . In addition , the government took actions that increased , rather than reduced , NORP and NORP tensions , threatening the country ’s already fragile stability and further exacerbating the poor religious freedom environment .

NORP experienced the worst attacks of any religious community during the reporting period , including against pilgrims participating in celebrations on or around important religious holidays . The government has proven unable to stop religiously - motivated attacks from occurring and lacks the will or capacity to investigate attacks and bring perpetrators to justice . This has created a climate of impunity , which in turn exacerbates a perpetual sense of fear for all religious communities , particularly the smallest ones . Large percentages of the country ’s smallest religious minorities DATE which include ORG and other NORP , ORG , and GPE – have fled the country in DATE , threatening these communities’ continued existence in GPE . The diminished numbers that remain face official discrimination , marginalization , and neglect , particularly in areas of northern GPE over which the NORP government and ORG ( ORG ) dispute control . Religious freedom abuses continue towards women and individuals who do not conform to strict interpretations of religious norms or attacks on businesses viewed as “ un - NORP ” . However , in a positive development , the NORP parliament shelved a problematic draft ORG law that would have restricted the freedoms of religion and expression . Additionally the ORG parliament rejected a draft law to “ protect sanctities , ” which , if adopted , would violate these same freedoms . However , there are reports that ORG officials may still pursue legal action against the media for offending religion , NORP history , or national symbols .

Many of the non - NORP minorities internally displaced by violence have gone to the north of the country , mainly to GPE governorate and the territory of the PERSON , which is comprised of CARDINAL other governorates . LOC , particularly the LOC area of GPE governorate , is the historic homeland of GPE ’s NORP community , and the ORG community is indigenous to GPE and the KRG governorate of PERSON . The CARDINAL KRG governorates are relatively secure , but Nineveh governorate , particularly in and around its capital GPE , remains extremely dangerous , and control over this ethnically and religiously mixed area is disputed between the PERSON and the central NORP government .

Religious and ethnic minorities in these areas , including non - NORP and ethnic GPE and ORG , have accused NORP forces and officials of engaging in systematic abuses and discrimination against them to further NORP territorial claims . These accusations include reports of NORP officials interfering with GPE voting rights ; encroaching on , seizing , and refusing to return minority land ; conditioning the provision of services and assistance to minority communities on support for NORP expansion ; forcing minorities to identify themselves as either NORP or NORP ; and impeding the formation of local minority police forces . The minorities also accuse both NORP and NORP officials of ignoring these vulnerable communities as they focus on their fight for territorial control . ”

The Representative of the ORG Secretary - General stated in the above - mentioned report of DATE ( at para . CARDINAL ) :

” In GPE of GPE , the Representative acknowledges that PERSON has received and provided safety to IDPs [ internally displaced persons ] from all over GPE regardless of their origin , particularly in the aftermath of the sectarian violence in the country DATE . Stronger coordination and cooperation mechanisms between ORG and ORG are necessary however , to address the situation of IDPs in this region , including vulnerable groups , as well as a number of administrative and financial assistance issues , such as difficulties in transferring PDS cards [ Public ORG food ration cards ] and receiving pensions , which are adversely affecting the rights and standard of living of IDPs . As well , while improved social , security , and economic conditions prevail in this region , continued cross border attacks continue to cause periodic displacement of its border populations . The ORG believes that stronger cooperation between the Government of GPE and PERSON , as well as concerted diplomatic efforts and border dialogues with relevant neighbouring countries , must be undertaken in order to prevent and raise awareness of the impact of cross - border attacks on civilian populations . ”

The UNHCR Guidelines contain the following observations ( at pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) :

“ In GPE , the rights of religious minorities are generally respected and groups can worship freely without interference . ORG funds public schools at the elementary and high school level in the LANGUAGE language . The curriculum in LOC does not contain religion or DATE studies . A significant number of religious minorities , in particular NORP , have sought refuge in the region .

A large number of persons from the central governorates have found refuge in the CARDINAL northern governorates since DATE . Commensurate with the sharp decrease in new displacements generally , the flow of new arrivals has decreased significantly ; however , only a few of those previously displaced have to date returned to their places of origin . The influx of IDPs has had an important impact on the host communities , including increasing housing and rental prices , additional pressure on already strained public services and concerns about security and demographic shifts . At the same time , the CARDINAL northern governorates have also benefited from the migration of professionals bringing skills and disposable incomes that boost the local economy . Unskilled IDPs have provided a source of affordable labour for the construction industry .

The ORG authorities continue to implement stringent controls on the presence of persons not originating from LOC . Depending on the applicant , particularly his / her ethnic and political profile , he / she may not be allowed to relocate to or take up legal residence in the CARDINAL northern governorates for security , political or demographic reasons . Others may be able to enter and legalize their stay , but may fear continued persecution as they may still be within reach of the actors of persecution or face undue hardship . Therefore , despite the hospitable attitude of the ORG authorities towards a considerable number of IDPs , the availability of an ORG [ internal flight / relocation alternative ] must be carefully assessed on a case - by - case basis ...

Since DATE of the former regime , the ORG authorities are very vigilant about who enters LOC and have introduced strict security measures at their checkpoints . However , there are no official and publicly accessible regulations concerning procedures and practices at the entry checkpoints into LOC . An ad hoc and often inconsistent approach can be expected in terms of who is granted access , varying not only from governorate to governorate , but also from checkpoint to checkpoint . The approach at a particular checkpoint may be influenced by several factors including the overall security situation , the particular checkpoint and its staff , the instructions issued on DATE and the particular governorate where the checkpoint is situated . ORG has repeatedly sought to obtain information and clarification from the ORG authorities on checkpoint practices and entry / residence in LOC , without success . Therefore , persons seeking to relocate to the LOC depend on informal information with regard to entry procedures .

Individuals / families wishing to enter LOC can seek to obtain a tourist , work or residence card . The tourist card , which is commonly given to persons from central and southern GPE who seek to enter LOC , allows the holder to stay for DATE . Depending on the person ’s profile , but also the checkpoint and the officer in charge , persons seeking to enter as tourists may be required to produce a sponsor . NORP , NORP and NORP from the disputed areas are usually requested to have a sponsor , while NORP ( not from the disputed areas ) and NORP are able to enter without a sponsor .

Alternatively , persons who have a proof of employment ( letter of appointment ) can obtain a work card , which is valid for DATE and is , in principle , renewable . Persons seeking to stay DATE should in principle obtain a residence card . Long - term stays always require a sponsor . ORG is not aware of any IDPs who have received the residence card .

The sponsorship process lacks clarity and there is no uniform procedure in place . In some cases , the sponsor is required to be physically present at the checkpoint to secure the person ’s entry . In other cases , it seems to suffice that a person seeking to relocate to LOC produces a letter notarized by a court clerk attesting to the person ’s connection to the sponsor . In some cases , the officer at the checkpoint will simply make a phone call to the sponsor to verify the acquaintance . NORP without sufficiently strong ties to GPE and who , therefore , are unable to find a sponsor , may be denied entry into LOC . There are reportedly also different requirements as to the nature of the sponsor .

ORG is aware of individuals who have been refused entry into LOC . NORP , NORP and certain profiles of NORP will likely face extensive questioning and may be denied entry at the checkpoint , mostly due to security concerns . In particular , single NORP males , including minors , are likely either to be denied entry into GPE or to be allowed entry only after a lengthy administrative procedure and heavy interrogation . ORG reportedly maintain “ blacklists ” of individuals banned from entering LOC , including those considered a security risk , but also those who have previously overstayed or did not renew their residence permits . NORP , especially those who fled due to targeted attacks , reportedly do not face difficulties in entering LOC .

Persons not originating from CARDINAL of the CARDINAL northern governorates intending to remain in LOC for DATE must approach the neighbourhood security station ( NORP ) in the area of relocation to obtain a permit to stay ( “ information card ” or karti zaniyari ) . As with the entry procedures , there are no official rules or regulations concerning the issuance of information cards . Generally , in all CARDINAL governorates , a sponsor is required in order to obtain the information card . This means that those that were able to enter without a sponsor are , at this stage , obliged to find a sponsor . Families , provided they have a sponsor from the governorate concerned and the necessary personal documentation , are usually able to secure the information card . Single people apparently face more difficulties . Persons who do not have a sponsor will not be able to regularize their continued stay and may be forced to leave .

Persons fleeing persecution at the hands of the ORG or the ruling parties will almost always not be able to find protection in another part of LOC . Persons fleeing persecution at the hands of non - state actors ( e.g. family / tribe in the case of fear from “ honour killing ” or blood feud ) may still be within reach of their persecutors . The same applies for persons fearing persecution by armed NORP groups . ”

As regards the acquisition of identity documents , the GPE ORG maintained ( GPE Operational Guidance Note of DATE , para . CARDINAL , and of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) :

“ It is not necessary for an individual to return to their registered place of residence to transfer documents to a new area of GPE . It is possible for example to apply at a registration office in GPE , to have documents transferred from elsewhere in GPE . However the PERSON [ ORG ] have said that in practice this does not happen because it is now safe enough for someone to return to their registered place of residence to arrange to transfer documents . The processes and procedures were the same throughout governorates across south and central GPE . ”

Disagreeing with the ORG as to the possibility of internal relocation for NORP asylum seekers , ORG further stated ( Iraq Operational Guidance Note of DATE , para . CARDINAL ) :

“ We do not however accept ORG ’s conclusions on internal relocation from the central governorates and consider that there is likely to be considerable scope for internal relocation that achieves both safety and reasonableness in all the circumstances . We consider ORG ’s position is tied in with general policy considerations ( e.g. about managing the rates of return ) deriving from their general and GPE - specific remit ; we do not consider that in the light of the evidence taken as a whole that mere civilian returnees are at real risk of persecution under LAW or of serious harm under either the [ ORG ] LAW CARDINAL [ of LAW ] currently . ”

In its DATE note ( at para . CARDINAL ) , ORG added the conclusions drawn by ORG ( see the following paragraph ) .

In a country guidance determination , PERSON ( documents – relocation ) GPE CG [ DATE ] ORG ( ORG ) , delivered on DATE , ORG ) concluded , among other things , the following ( at para . CARDINAL ) :

“ Entry into and residence in the ORG can be effected by any NORP national with a ORG [ ORG ] , ORG [ NORP Nationality Certificate ] and PDS , after registration with the NORP ( local security office ) . An NORP may need a sponsor ; a NORP will not .

Living conditions in the PERSON for a person who has relocated there are not without difficulties , but there are jobs , and there is access to free health care facilities , education , rented accommodation and financial and other support from ORG . ”

NORP The findings in GPE were endorsed in a recent country guidance determination , ORG and others ( LAW GPE CG [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ( ORG ) , of CARDINAL DATE . Having particular regard to the NORP / GPE report extensively quoted below ( at § DATE ) , ORG stated ( at para . CARDINAL ) :

“ Taking the evidence as a whole , we consider that if anything , it tends to show that no - one needs a sponsor , rather than , as was concluded in GPE , that a NORP will not and an NORP may . By needing a sponsor we refer not only to entry but also to residence in the KRG . ... ”

On the issue of identity documents , it further noted ( at para . CARDINAL ) :

“ ... [ In GPE ] the ORG commented that there was nothing to show that it was , or perhaps ever had been , the case that a central register in GPE had been kept . [ F]urther evidence [ now presented ] requires us to modify that position . Given the current state of the evidence in this regard , we consider that we can add to the guidance in GPE by noting the existence of ORG retaining civil identity records on microfiche , providing a further way in which a person can identify themselves and obtain a copy of their ORG , whether from abroad or within GPE . ”

ORG and ORG published on DATE the ORG on Joint NORP - Swiss Fact - Finding Mission to GPE and ORG ( KRG ) Area , DATE ( “ the NORP / NORP report ” ) . In summarising the situation ( at p. CARDINAL ) , it noted , among other things , the following :

“ At the time of the ORG [ Fact - Finding Mission ] , there seemed to be little discrimination against ethnic or religious minorities . The flight of NORP from GPE to the KRG area has continued since the bomb attack on a church in GPE in DATE . Internally displaced persons ( IDPs ) and refugees are better off in the LOC than in the rest of GPE and generally felt safe in the region at the time of the ORG . At the same time , some suffer from poverty , remain unregistered , and lack access to proper housing , education , health care , and employment . ”

It further stated ( at pp . CARDINAL ) :

“ Interviewed sources confirmed that the ORG is open and liberal toward religious minorities and normally also toward ethnic minorities . The areas controlled by the ORG can be considered safe for minorities . In the NORP areas , a majority of NORP live close to minorities such as NORP , NORP , NORP , ORG , GPE , ORG , and NORP / Sabaeans . NORP , PERSON , and ORG are perceived as NORP and therefore are generally not persecuted , but they can be under social pressure for assimilation . ”

On the subject of entry procedures at the LOC area border , the report gave the following account ( at pp . CARDINAL ) :

“ The fact - finding mission learned that there have been no relevant , recent changes to ORG entry and screening procedures . ORG in GPE indicated that there are no government statistics available on who has entered the LOC area and who has been denied access . There are CARDINAL main entry checkpoints to the LOC area , which are controlled by ORG . The checkpoints apply basically the same entry procedures .

At the same time , some international organizations , NGOs , and the ORG claimed that the guidelines on entry practices are not consistent between the CARDINAL northern governorates of the ORG or between checkpoints leading to a single governorate . There are also no published instructions or regulations on entry procedures , as these would be against LAW . According to the ORG , entry often depends on the commander on duty and the commander ’s DATE instructions at the checkpoint . The procedures can be tightened or relaxed according to the current security situation in the area .

Several NGOs and the ORG have surveyed IDPs at different times concerning entry procedures to the LOC region at different checkpoints . A comparison of the results shows differences in entry practices between governorates and time periods . For instance , the surveys show that the need for a sponsor / guarantor has essentially ceased at a NORP governorate entry checkpoint , but that even at CARDINAL checkpoint congruency can lack at different times .

People who are denied entry to the PERSON area are often not of NORP ethnicity . NORP and NORP are generally allowed entry , whereas single male NORP without a sponsor in the LOC area are refused . The ORG noted that female NORP have also had trouble entering the LOC area . Single females are also at higher risk of harassment by authorities . However , a source mentioned that NORP from LOC who invest in the LOC are welcomed to the region . According to another source , IDPs with money are able to move to GPE and start a business .

Anyone wishing to enter the ORG area who does not originate from the region typically needs to know someone there ( a so - called sponsor / guarantor ) or have a letter of reference from an employer in the LOC area . A sponsor is needed if the person wants to stay in the LOC area for DATE or wants to register and seek residency in the region . If someone enters the KRG area and subsequently commits a crime , his or her sponsor will be punished and may even face a prison sentence .

A member of the immediate family or some other relative often acts as the sponsor . An institution such as an university can also act as a sponsor . The fact - finding mission received conflicting information during interviews on whether or not a church can act as a sponsor . The policy applied to NORP was said to have been relaxed after the bomb attack at a church in GPE in DATE . NORP may currently be able to nominate senior clerics as sponsors . The fact - finding mission heard that it is easier for NORP originating outside the LOC area than for persons of other ethnicities to find a sponsor in the region . ”

Published in DATE , ORG of ORG PERSON to Erbil and PERSON , GPE of GPE ( KRI ) , conducted CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE ( “ the NORP / GPE report ” ) gave the following information :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL According to the Director of an international NGO in GPE , all NORP irrespective of ethnic origin or religious orientation are free to enter KRI through the PERSON external checkpoints by presenting their ORG [ and ] there were CARDINAL of persons of NORP origin living in GPE , many living with their families , whilst others had come to KRI for work , including individuals .

CARDINAL [ The Director of ORG ( BMD ) of ORG in GPE explained that at ] present CARDINAL ORG families from [ southern and central ] GPE and the disputed areas reside in all CARDINAL governorates of GPE , i.e. GPE , GPE and GPE governorates .

PERSON ... [ The Director of ORG stated that ] there are large numbers of IDPs from religious minority communities in [ southern and central ] GPE and the disputed areas . These are mostly NORP and PERSON who were displaced following sectarian violence .

CARDINAL NORP [ The Head of the Private Bureau of General Security ( NORP ) ] explained that it was important the ORG authorities knew who was entering PERSON and therefore the NORP had good levels of cooperation with NORP intelligence , sharing details of persons who they were required to arrest and stop . In addition the NORP maintained their own classified information on terrorist groups , such as PERSON or ORG in GPE . [ He ] explained there were CARDINAL security lists in operation , the “ black list ” , which included persons who had an arrest warrant outstanding for their detention and a second list , i.e. the “ stop list ” .

CARDINAL According to [ the Head of NORP , ] at KRG external checkpoints , documents would be required to prove the identity of a person[. T]his could include their ORG , ORG , passport or , if they worked for a government department , their departmental ORG card . However [ , he ] further explained that a person would not necessarily be denied entry into KRI because he or she lacked some identification documents , as the system is computerised . [ He ] went on to explain that a person already on their database system would be logged with their photo and name recorded onto the system . Consequently such a person could even enter PERSON with only a driving licence or a similar document which proved the individual ’s identity and NORP citizenship .

CARDINAL [ The General Manager of GPE checkpoints in ORG , ORG , GPE ] explained [ that ] after a person had finished providing information about their identity to NORP at the ORG external checkpoint , they would then undergo a second procedure at the checkpoint to apply for the appropriate entry card . There existed CARDINAL entry cards : a Tourism Card , a Work Card , and an Information Card / Residency Card for those seeking to reside in KRI . Once the relevant card had been issued , the person would then be free to travel throughout KRI , including travel between the CARDINAL KRI governorates , without being required to show any further form of documentation . [ He ] stated that this procedure made it easy for anyone to move freely within KRI .

CARDINAL During a visit by the delegation to the GPE - GPE checkpoint , ... [ w]hen asked what would happen if a person did not have an address or know anyone in GPE , [ the major who had overall operational responsibility for the checkpoint ] explained that such a person would still be allowed to enter and the majority of those coming into KRI were migrant workers in search of employment with no reference in KRI .

CARDINAL PAO [ ORG , ORG partner in GPE ] outlined the entry procedures at the ORG external checkpoints and noted that persons seeking to enter the KRI would be questioned and asked to provide their identification , usually a ORG or Nationality Card , after which they would obtain CARDINAL of CARDINAL cards for DATE a Tourism Card , valid for DATE or DATE and which was renewable ; a Work Card valid for DATE which was also renewable ; or LAW for those seeking to reside in GPE . PAO did not know how long this card , issued at the checkpoint , would be valid for .

CARDINAL NORP The Director of an international NGO in GPE explained that whenever there are specific security concerns and/or threats of terrorist attacks the security and entry procedures will be adapted to the situation . Such procedures only related to security concerns and not to any other factor and these procedures are normal even in LOC .

CARDINAL NORP When asked if there would be variations in applied entry procedures at KRG checkpoints , an international organization ( A ) stated that such variations are only related to security concerns and precautions and nothing else .

CARDINAL According to ORG , all entry procedures are only related to security considerations and nothing else . Harikar NGO emphasized that its cooperation with the NORP is good and that the NORP comply with the law , including the procedures applied at KRG checkpoints . ORG has not noticed any irregularities or arbitrary practices at the checkpoints .

CARDINAL [ The Head of NORP ] clarified that the policy requiring a person to provide a reference at the ORG external checkpoint , i.e. before entry , existed when the security situation was more precarious , but was abandoned DATE . However [ , he ] added there may still be some instances in which a person was asked by Asayish at the checkpoint to make a telephone call to somebody they knew , to verify their identity .

CARDINAL NORP During a tour of the GPE - GPE checkpoint [ the major who had overall operational responsibility for the checkpoint ] explained that there was no longer a requirement for a reference to be present at the LOC external checkpoint and [ that ] this procedure was abolished DATE .

CARDINAL NORP The Director of an international NGO in GPE explained that the former requirement that a reference should be present at the KRG checkpoint in order for a person to enter KRI has been abolished .

CARDINAL ORG stated that there is no requirement for a reference to be present at a KRG checkpoint in order for an NORP from outside KRI to enter .

CARDINAL NORP When asked how persons without genuine identity documents would be treated by the PERSON authorities when seeking to enter KRI , an international organization ( B ) explained that a NORP without personal ID documents may be treated more sympathetically and be permitted entry because they would normally know someone in KRI who could identify him or her or they would have a known family / clan name which was recognised . With regard to NORP , the entry arrangements were significantly easier and such persons may even be able to enter KRI without providing any documentation at all . This was because NORP were not considered a terrorist threat to the region – the ORG authorities were very lenient towards NORP . However , the international organization ( B ) concluded that a person of NORP origin without genuine documents to identify themselves would not be permitted entry .

CARDINAL According to the Director of an international NGO in GPE , all NORP irrespective of ethnic origin or religious orientation are free to enter KRI through the PERSON external checkpoints by presenting their ORG . The Director added that NORP , NORP and PERSON NORP normally enter through these checkpoints without any difficulties . On the other hand NORP of NORP origin would normally be required to undergo greater scrutiny , requested to present their ORG at the checkpoint and explain the nature and intention of their visit to KRI . However , this procedure was unproblematic and did not require that a reference should be present at the checkpoint . According to [ the Director ] all persons would be required to routinely show their ORG at the entry checkpoint and persons of NORP origin faced no problems in staying in the KRI . However the same source clarified that persons of NORP origin would normally have their ORG photocopied as an extra security precaution . The Director emphasized that persons of NORP origin do not need a reference to be present at the checkpoint . ”


CASE OF FAZLI ASLANER v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Impartial tribunal);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant , who was a court registrar ( zabıt kâtibi ) in the registry of ORG , passed a local competitive examination organised by ORG for the post of head registrar ( yazı işleri müdürü ) at ORG . However , since his ranking ( CARDINALth place ) in the competition was insufficient for him to obtain the post , he was placed on the reserve list drawn up at the close of the competition . The first successful candidate was appointed to the post in question . The second successful candidate was subsequently appointed to a position as head registrar in the second section of ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to be appointed to the post of head registrar at ORG .

The authorities having refused his request , he lodged an application for judicial review with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s claims . The court found that of the candidates who had passed the aforementioned competition , CARDINAL who had done better and QUANTITY who had done less well than the applicant had been appointed head registrars in other judicial districts , and concluded that the authorities’ refusal had had no basis in law .

The Ministry of Justice appealed on points of law against that judgment .

As the appeal lacked suspensive effect , the ORG proceeded to appoint the applicant to the post of head registrar in LOC , in compliance with the judgment .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the Fifth Division ” ) quashed the impugned judgment , contrary to the submissions of ORG , PERSON ORG pointed out that the competitive examination organised by ORG had been intended to fill a post in ORG and that registration on the reserve list had not entitled the candidate in question to a post as head registrar in a court within the jurisdiction of a different judicial committee . It explained that an appointment could only be made to another judicial district at the request of the judicial committee in question or else in order to meet current judicial needs , upon a decision from ORG , which had discretionary powers in this field .

The bench comprised CARDINAL judges , including PERSON and PERSON M.R.Ü. , and was presided over by Mr E.Ç.

On DATE the same division dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment , on the grounds that none of the preconditions for recourse to this remedy as set out in LAW had been met .

On DATE ORG decided to maintain the position set out in its initial judgment , thus electing to disregard that adopted by ORG of ORG ( ısrar kararı ) .

Following a fresh appeal on points of law lodged by the authorities , the case was referred automatically to ORG of ORG ( Danıştay İdari PERSON ; “ the ORG ” ) owing to the resistance of the court of first instance .

On DATE the said ORG quashed the judgment delivered by ORG by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . Mr GPE and Mr M.R.Ü. were on the bench , which was presided over by PERSON in her capacity as Vice - President of ORG , a post to which she had recently been elected . The bench also included CARDINAL judges who had adjudicated on the request for rectification of ORG judgment of DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant submitted a request for rectification of ORG judgment .

On DATE ORG rejected that request on the grounds that none of the conditions set out in LAW had been met . PERSON , who had recently been promoted to ORG , sat on the bench , alongside other judges who had previously adjudicated in the case .


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and applied for asylum and a residence permit . Before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) , he submitted essentially the following . He is an ethnic GPE from GPE , GPE . He had run a business in his home country and had bought goods from his business partner , also an ethnic GPE , in GPE . In DATE the business partner had been arrested and since he had been in the possession of a receipt from the applicant , they had both been indicted on suspicion of financially supporting the GPE disturbances in GPE . In DATE the applicant had been arrested by the NORP police . His health had deteriorated while he was in custody and , after his release , he had been hospitalised because of his kidney problems . The doctors had informed him that he needed to have blood dialysis but that there was a DATE waiting list . After having been pressured by the authorities , the doctors had informed the applicant that he would not receive any blood dialysis . Moreover , his family had informed him that the police had come to his house looking for him several times after he had left the country . He suffered from chronic kidney failure and was in need of dialysis CARDINAL times per week .

The Board held a supplementary interview with the applicant in DATE where he claimed that , during his detention , the NORP police had taken his passport , forced him to sign a travel ban and had also ill - treated him . He had been summoned to appear in court a few times and , after the second summons , he had left the country . He had received written summonses but he had not brought them with him to GPE and he could not contact his family since he feared their telephone was tapped . The applicant further believed that the NORP authorities had contacted the NORP authorities and that for this reason he had been refused medical treatment . However , he also claimed that he had been refused treatment already in DATE , before being called by the police .

On DATE , ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the applicant had failed to submit any written evidence in support of his claims . It further found it noteworthy that central parts of the applicant ’s story had only been provided at the supplementary interview and not at the initial interview or in written submissions . It therefore considered that he had escalated the threat against him during the asylum proceedings . ORG further noted that the applicant had submitted contradictory information as to when he had been denied health care . First he had stated that he had been refused dialysis after his detention in the DATE while , during the supplementary interview , he had stated that he had been refused treatment already in DATE . In any event , the ORG observed that there had been a regime change in GPE since the applicant had left the country and that there was nothing to indicate that the present regime would have any specific interest in him . Thus , ORG concluded that the applicant was not in need of international protection .

As concerned the applicant ’s health , the ORG noted that the applicant had submitted a medical certificate according to which he suffered from chronic kidney failure secondary to chronic glomerulonephritis and received blood dialysis CARDINAL times per week . Without the dialysis he would die within DATE . ORG found that , according to the applicant ’s own submissions , blood dialysis was available in GPE and , since he had not been found credible , he had also failed to substantiate that he would be denied proper treatment upon return . Consequently , he could not be granted a residence permit and was to be expelled from GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) , maintaining his claims and adding that he had not given contradictory information about the refusal to treat him in GPE . He had been diagnosed during DATE and then been informed about DATE waiting time . However , it was only after his arrest in DATE that the doctors told him that he would not receive any dialysis treatment at all . As concerned the regime change , there was no indication that the situation had improved for the GPE people . He further submitted new medical certificates confirming his illness and need for treatment .

ORG decided to hold an oral hearing during which the applicant added , inter alia , the following . He had been questioned by the police twice . The first time , in DATE , the police had asked him whether he financially supported the GPE disturbances in GPE and they had beaten him all over his body , including on the kidneys . When he had lost consciousness , the police had become scared and had released him . During the second questioning , the police had confiscated his passport and imposed a travel ban on him . He had later been summoned to court but had not attended . Instead , he had decided to leave the country and had paid a smuggler to help him . After arriving in GPE , he had been in contact via telephone and internet with friends and family in GPE , who had informed him that the NORP authorities had been to his house looking for him and that he had received further summonses . In relation to his illness , he claimed that the NORP would keep searching for him and that he would therefore not receive any treatment in his home country . He also submitted an extract from his NORP medical record which he had received when he was released from hospital in DATE and which he had brought with him to GPE .

On DATE , ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that the applicant had failed to substantiate his identity but accepted that he came from GPE . It further observed that he had not submitted any written evidence in support of his alleged need for protection for which reason his credibility was decisive for the outcome . However , the court considered that the applicant ’s submissions were far - fetched , lacking in detail and that they contained contradictory information . For instance , as concerned the applicant ’s submissions that the NORP authorities suspected him of sponsoring the GPE disturbances in GPE , the court found this improbable since the applicant had had a clear business relationship with the person in GPE over DATE . Moreover , he had submitted contradictory information as to when he had been refused medical treatment and how many times he had been summoned to court . Therefore , the court concluded that the applicant ’s submissions were not credible and that he had failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution upon return .

As to the applicant ’s health , the court noted that it was undisputed that he suffered from chronic kidney failure and that he was in need of regular blood dialysis and medication to survive . Without the dialysis , he would die within DATE and , apart from regular treatment , the only other solution was a kidney transplant . His state of health was consequently extremely serious . Moreover , the court observed that it was clear that blood dialysis was available in GPE while , according to the applicant , kidney transplants were not carried out . According to the applicant ’s own submissions , in DATE he had been placed on a waiting list for dialysis and the waiting time had been DATE . After having been arrested in DATE , his name had allegedly been removed from the waiting list and he had been refused treatment . However , the court noted that , according to the extract from the applicant ’s medical records , he had been hospitalised in GPE because of his kidney disease in DATE and again from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , on the second occasion with the diagnosis of chronic terminal kidney failure . Since , according to the most recent NORP medical certificate , a person with such a diagnosis would die within DATE without blood dialysis , the court concluded that the applicant had received medical care both before and after being arrested by the police . He had thus failed to substantiate that he would not receive adequate treatment within a reasonable time upon return to GPE .

Upon further appeal by the applicant , ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal on DATE . Hence , the expulsion order became enforceable .

On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG and requested it to apply Rule CARDINAL of ORG . On DATE , the acting President of the Section to which the case had been allocated acceded to the applicant ’s request and indicated to the Government that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE for the duration of the proceedings before the ORG . On DATE , the application was communicated to the Government .

In view of the ORG ’s indication to the ORG , ORG decided , on DATE , to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order against the applicant until further notice .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order as there were impediments to it due his deteriorated health and to grant him a residence permit . He submitted a medical certificate , dated DATE , by a Chief Physician at ORG in GPE . It stated that the applicant had had a crisis reaction to the expulsion order against him and had not attended CARDINAL dialysis sessions . As a result , his health had significantly deteriorated and he had been given emergency dialysis and had also met with a psychiatrist . He had been kept in hospital due to his poor mental and physical health . It would be completely unreasonable to expel him without ensuring that dialysis would be available to him upon return to his home country .

On DATE ORG rejected the request . It considered that the applicant had invoked no new circumstances concerning his health which could alter the assessment made by ORG in the initial proceedings or which amounted to an impediment to the enforcement of the expulsion order .

In DATE the applicant again requested ORG to stay the enforcement of the expulsion order and to grant him a residence permit in GPE since the impediment to the enforcement was permanent . He had been in contact with his family in GPE and , through them , obtained a certificate from ORG , dated DATE , which confirmed that the applicant had been on the national waiting list for blood dialysis since DATE . It further stated that due to the lack of dialysis equipment and the increasing number of patients in need of treatment , there was currently no possibility to offer the applicant dialysis within the public health care system in the country . The applicant had also received from his family a certificate , dated DATE , and issued by the hospital where he had previously been treated , ORG . It stated that the applicant had been treated at the ORG ’s unit for nephrology for glomerulonephritis and final stages of chronical kidney failure . It further stated that due to the lack of equipment he could not go through the programme for dialysis . He had , however , been put on the national waiting list .

On DATE ORG rejected the request as it found that the new certificates did not alter the assessment made in the initial proceedings and that , consequently , there were no grounds on which to grant the applicant a residence permit .

In DATE the applicant ’s father wrote to ORG requesting that the applicant be given treatment in GPE for his illness . He noted in the letter that he had had to send the applicant to GPE to save his life but that they wanted him to be treated in GPE .

DATE , on DATE , the ORG replied to the applicant ’s father . However , the reply , which contains no specific addressee , would appear to be rather a request to the NORP health care system to provide the applicant with proper treatment as it states that , due to the long waiting time and lack of dialysis equipment , it is not possible for them to treat the applicant in GPE and they are grateful for the invaluable contribution to the health care of a citizen of GPE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG . ORG , who had been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings , under LAW , gave no indication that they wished to do so .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

NORP In DATE the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention on suspicion of aggravated theft , robbery , aggravated murder , human trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms .

On DATE the applicant was indicted together with CARDINAL other persons for human trafficking and unlawful possession of firearms . No information has been provided to the ORG concerning the outcome of these proceedings before the courts .

On DATE the applicant was indicted together with ORG , a NORP citizen , for the crimes of aggravated theft and the robbery and aggravated murder of QUANTITY persons , including an DATE girl .

In DATE the applicant ’s trial started before ORG .

By a decision of the prison administration , issued on DATE following an attempt to escape , the applicant was classified as “ dangerous prisoner ” . DATE and DATE this decision had been revised and maintained by the prison administration on CARDINAL occasions , based on reasons such as the initial evasion attempt , the severity of the crimes for which the applicant was prosecuted and the fact that he had been also indicted for unlawful possession of firearms .

On DATE ORG convicted both the applicant and PERSON for aggravated theft , aggravated homicide and robbery and sentenced them to life imprisonment . The court held that the applicant together with ORG broke into the house of a family they were acquainted with , in order to rob and murder them . They strangled the woman and stabbed the man CARDINAL times and then buried their bodies in the woods . They also killed their DATE daughter by strangling her and then buried her while she was still alive . This judgment became final on DATE when ORG and ORG rejected the appeals on points of law ( recurs ) submitted by the applicant and GPE

According to the applicant he had to wear handcuffs during the public hearings throughout the entire criminal trial .

In a letter addressed to ORG Agent before the ORG on DATE , the president of ORG submitted that , following verification of the entire file concerning the applicant starting from the confirmation of his pre - trial detention on DATE and until the delivery of the final judgment on DATE , the use of handcuffs was discussed on the occasion of CARDINAL hearings as follows :

– at the hearing of DATE the applicant ’s representative requested the court to allow that the applicant ’s handcuffs were taken off since they interfered with his freedom of expression . The court rejected this request based on the applicant ’s classification as dangerous prisoner by the prison authorities ;

– at the hearing of DATE the applicant ’s representative renewed the request which was allowed by the court ;

– at the hearing of DATE the request was again renewed and allowed by the court ;

– at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s representative asked for the recusal of the trial judge alleging that he had submitted the applicant to ill - treatment by keeping him handcuffed during CARDINAL hearings . This request was rejected as the reason invoked was not amongst the reasons provided by law for challenging the impartiality of a judge . The applicant was advised that a complaint of ill - treatment should be addressed to the competent authorities ;

– at the hearing of DATE the applicant ’s representative again requested that the applicant ’s handcuffs were taken off . The request was allowed by the court .

An overview of the relevant provisions in force at the relevant time concerning the use of handcuffs during detention , including pending trial , is presented in GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON ( GPE ) , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON ( PERSON ) , PERSON and Ms Saniye Keskin Alemdar , are CARDINAL NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They were represented before ORG by Ms Gülseren Çanga , a lawyer practising in FAC .

s , may be summarised as follows .

In DATE , PERSON and PERSON , the applicants’ predecessors , purchased a plot of land in GPE , in LOC , which had been registered in the land register as plot no . CARDINAL , parcel no . CARDINAL .

In DATE , the forest administration conducted a cadastral survey . On DATE , as a consequence of the survey , an annotation was made in the land register indicating that the applicants’ land could not be sold as it was classified as part of the public forest .

On DATE the applicants instituted proceedings before ORG of First Instance seeking the annulment of the outcome of the cadastral survey .

On DATE the ORG of First Instance dismissed the applicants’ case , holding that the cadastral survey was in conformity with the law . An appeal and a request for rectification lodged by the applicants were subsequently dismissed by ORG and the decision became final on DATE . The final decision was notified to the applicants on CARDINAL DATE .

Under LAW of DATE , ownership of public forests may not be transferred to others ; public forests will be managed and exploited by the ORG in accordance with the law . Ownership of such forests can not be acquired through adverse possession , nor may the forests be subject to any easement , unless it is considered to be in the public interest .

Under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , the cadastral commissions decide whether an area will be categorized as a public forest or a private forest . The same law governs the way in which the cadastral commissions operate ( sections CARDINAL ) .

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The object of PERSON no . DATE was to provide for the settlement , by means of compensation , of applications lodged with the ORG concerning length of judicial proceedings , and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A Compensation Commission was set up for that purpose . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The competence ratione materiae of ORG was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended the competence of ORG to the examination of other complaints , such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than NORP and the prison authorities’ refusal , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

ORG issued a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of ORG .

ORG is now entitled to examine the following subjects under LAW decree , which reads as follows :

“ a ) ORG concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant ’s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area , or as a result of the application of section CARDINAL/B of Law no . CARDINAL , or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys ;

b ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant ’s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area ;

c ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans ;

d ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant ’s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities ;

e ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration ’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in NORP . ”


Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , Mr GPE , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lived in GPE , ORG . He was represented before ORG ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG . ORG were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

NORP On DATE the President of the Section decided , in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG , to indicate to the Government of GPE , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , that the applicant should not be extradited to GPE until further notice . The President of the Section also decided to request ORG and GPE , under LAW ( a ) of ORG , to submit factual information regarding the extradition proceedings , the criminal prosecution of the applicant in GPE and his alleged employment by ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

ORG and ORG and GPE , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant left GPE and travelled to GPE to live with his father in the village of PERSON , ORG .

On DATE notification was sent to the applicant in GPE that he was being drafted into the armed forces . His relatives informed the authorities that he had moved to GPE . In response , on DATE the GPE department of ORG of GPE requested the police and prosecution authorities to search for the applicant .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on charges of fraud and misappropriation . According to the investigation , the crimes had been committed in DATE against a restaurant and a private individual . The proceeds of the crime totalled CARDINAL ( ORG ) .

On DATE an investigator at ORG ordered the applicant ’s search and arrest for the purpose of serving an indictment on him .

On DATE , at the request of ORG , ORG ordered the applicant ’s arrest and CARDINAL months’ detention from the date of his apprehension .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant told the NORP media that he was a former agent of the MNS , that he had witnessed the torture of Mr GPE on the LOC of the FAC in GPE from DATE , and that Mr GPE had died as a result of torture . In this connection , he gave the names of the senior officials of the ORG who had allegedly tortured that person .

On DATE the criminal case against the applicant was suspended pending his arrest .

NORP In DATE the applicant moved from GPE to GPE for the purpose of requesting asylum .

On DATE the applicant applied for asylum to ORG of ORG ( “ the GPE ORG ” ) . His statements to the immigration authorities and the media contained the following allegations :

On DATE the applicant received notification from the MD FMS that his asylum request had been accepted for consideration . Subsequently , he left GPE and went to LOC without notifying the immigration authorities . The GPE address which he had provided to the GPE ORG was later discovered to be false .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the lawenforcement authorities in GPE on the basis of the search - and - arrest warrant issued in GPE .

On DATE , having considered the merits of the applicant ’s asylum request , the MD ORG decided to refuse it . The relevant parts of the decision read as follows :

“ ORG substantiated his request by claiming that his life had been threatened by the MNS of GPE .

He confirmed his identity by [ presenting his NORP passport ] ...

He refused to provide his military service identification card , stating that it was ‘ a state ORG ...

PERSON reasoned the existence of a threat to his life ... by the fact that he had refused to comply with an order issued by the ORG to kill a person ...

[ He stated that ] DATE he had worked as a secret agent for the MNS . He refused to answer the question whether he had followed any secret service training in the ORG , since it was ‘ a state ORG .

ORG stated that ... as a result of his failure to comply with an order to ‘ kill a person’ he had started to receive threats personally from the Minister of ORG ... [ and ] that to save his life he had fled to GPE ... [ In GPE ] he had started receiving further threats ... and CARDINAL times he had been offered a monetary reward of [ ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to EUR CARDINAL ] for his ‘ silence’ and keeping the state secret .

The analysis of ORG personal file demonstrates that the reason which triggered his departure from his home country and his unwillingness to return was not a threat to his life from the ORG , but a real fear of arrest for fraud .

The statements of the applicant are contradictory .

ORG ... was not a member of any political , civic or religious association in GPE , and was never persecuted on ethnic grounds . His employment by the ORG is not proven by any documents .

During the check of his declared place of residence in GPE ... [ it had proven to be non - existent ] and this fact demonstrates the lack of sincerity in the applicant ’s statements ...

The circumstances mentioned above prove that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that ORG would be a victim of persecution in GPE ... ” .

The decision also contained an extensive section analysing the international human - rights obligations of GPE , its human - rights record as reported by NGOs and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe , reports on the ethnic , social and economic situation in the country , as well as migration dynamics .

The applicant ’s representative , PERSON , complained against the decision to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . The complaint stated that the regional immigration authorities had failed to consider CARDINAL facts : first , that the applicant had left GPE before the institution of criminal proceedings against him ; and secondly , that given the reports of human - rights organisations about the practice of torture and other human - rights violations in GPE , the applicant would be exposed to those risks , especially in view of the political nature of his prosecution .

On DATE the ORG issued decision No . CARDINAL upholding the decision of the regional authorities . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ It must be observed that the applicant ’s statement that the reason for his presence in GPE is to seek asylum is not corroborated by the facts ... After arriving on DATE he did not lodge his request until DATE after the period of his lawful stay [ in GPE ] had expired . Publications on the internet signed by him started to appear only in DATE ( after leaving GPE and at the end of the period of lawful stay in GPE ) .

The asylum seeker claims that he was an agent of the ORG , but does not provide any supporting documents and only refers to information on the internet as proof .

The claim that since DATE of DATE he has been persecuted by the leadership of the ORG as a result of his refusal to kill a woman ... has also not been proved .

In DATE he ... obtained a passport in his name for travelling abroad ... and until his arrival in GPE in DATE he repeatedly travelled outside GPE , including a trip to GPE in DATE with his wife .

From GPE he returned with his wife to GPE , despite his allegation that his life was threatened there ... [ and only one month ] later left for GPE .

The analysis of the decision by the MD ORG , the case file , the allegations of the asylum seeker , and information of the ORG and ORG on the situation in GPE demonstrate that ... there are no reasonable grounds for [ Mr PERSON ’s ] alleged fear of persecution in GPE . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s representative , PERSON , appealed against the above decisions to the ORG of GPE . Neither the applicant nor his representative informed the ORG about the outcome of the appeal .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE forwarded to the NORP authorities an extradition request in respect of the applicant . The relevant parts of the request read as follows :

“ We guarantee that in accordance with international law PERSON will be provided in GPE with all the facilities for defence , including the services a of defence counsel , he will not be tortured or subjected to any inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , and relevant conventions of the ORG and ORG ) .

The Prosecutor General of GPE guarantees that the extradition request has not been lodged with the aim of persecuting [ the applicant ] on political , racial , religious or ethnic grounds .

The Prosecutor General of GPE guarantees that in accordance with LAW on legal cooperation and relations in civil , family and criminal matters of DATE PERSON would be prosecuted only for the crime which served as the basis for this extradition request , and after his trial or , in case of conviction , after serving his sentence he would be free to leave GPE . PERSON will not be extradited , expelled or transferred to any other ORG without the consent of the NORP competent authorities ” .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE authorised the applicant ’s extradition , stating that there were no obstacles to it under international law and NORP legislation .

NORP The applicant ’s representative , PERSON , challenged the authorisation in court . The complaint stated that the asylum proceedings were still pending and that the criminal prosecution of the applicant had a political nature , because he “ engages in human rights defence and reveals facts of human rights violations in GPE ” .

On DATE the applicant was released from detention on his own recognisance and immediately fled from his last known place of residence in GPE . According to the statements of his relatives and representatives , the applicant avoided any contact with the law - enforcement authorities .

On DATE ORG considered the complaint against the extradition authorisation in the absence of the applicant , who had avoided any contact with the NORP authorities . ORG upheld the authorisation . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :

“ The defence counsel PERSON stated in court that there were no reasons to extradite PERSON , who had been persecuted by officers of ORG on political grounds ... In the event of extradition the police of GPE would subject PERSON to violence and torture ...

The defence witness Mr PERSON stated that his son ... had started living with him in the village of GPE , ORG in DATE , and that according to [ an unidentified ] colonel of the ORG his son was an agent of the security services ...

The prosecution stated that the complaint should be dismissed , since all the arguments of the defence had been refuted during the extradition check ...

[ T]he court considers the extradition authorisation ... to be reasonable and lawful ...

The arguments of the defence counsel that the asylum proceedings are not yet finished are erroneous .

... The case materials demonstrate that the decision of ORG [ to refuse asylum ] of DATE was considered lawful and upheld on appeal on DATE ...

The opinion of the complainant that PERSON must not be extradited to another ORG , since his criminal prosecution is of a political nature is arbitrary .

The case file contains no evidence proving that PERSON was employed by ORG , any political party or human rights organisation . The statements of PERSON and his father that [ the applicant ] is being persecuted as a former agent of the ORG are unsubstantiated .

The extradition request of ORG guarantees that he will not be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and that the request does not pursue any political motives ...

The court examined the materials submitted by the defence counsel about possible human rights violations in GPE .

Having regard to the generally positive situation regarding respect for human rights in the ORG seeking extradition , the specific circumstances of the present case and the guarantees of the NORP authorities , the court does not consider that there are any reasonable grounds to believe that [ the applicant would be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment ] ” .

NORP The applicant ’s representative allegedly appealed against the judgment to ORG of GPE . However , neither the applicant nor his representative informed the ORG about the outcome of that appeal .

On DATE the Government of GPE informed the ORG that they were not aware of any documents proving the applicant ’s employment by , or any other cooperation with , the ORG of GPE . They highlighted the fact that the extradition request did not contain such information either .

On DATE the Government of GPE stated to the ORG that the applicant had never been an employee of the ORG and had not cooperated with it in any other form .

The Government of GPE also stated that the criminal investigation into the death of Mr PERSON had been conducted by ORG , but that the applicant had no relation to the case or the investigation .

In support of the applicant ’s account of events his representative submitted to the ORG several letters and statements of human - rights activists and non - governmental organisations .

The statement of DATE by ORG urged the ORG to stay the applicant ’s extradition to GPE in view of the risk of ill - treatment . The statement does not contain any specific information on the applicant ’s case , but provides a summary of international reports on the situation in GPE in general and in GPE in particular .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE Ms Malahat GPE , a well - known human - rights activist and president of ORG , an NGO based in GPE , asked the NORP authorities not to extradite the applicant to GPE , alleging that he had been involved in the case of Mr GPE and risked “ serious punishment ” by the authorities .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the lawyer of the deceased PERSON GPE stated that the applicant , according to his statements , was a “ key witness ” to PERSON GPE ’s death and that he had been forced to leave GPE under pressure from the authorities .


CASE OF YAVOROVENKO AND OTHERS v. UKRAINE

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

On the dates set out in the appended table domestic courts delivered decisions according to which the applicants were entitled to various pecuniary amounts or to have certain actions taken in their favour . The decisions became final and enforceable . However , the applicants were unable to obtain the enforcement of the decisions in due time .

Some of the applicants also made submissions concerning factual and legal matters unrelated to the above non - enforcement issues .