European Court of Human Rights
5 July 2016
Facts
The applicant Mr A.M. applied for asylum in the Netherlands. He stated that he was an Afghan national of Hazara origin. After two interviews, the authorities expressed their intention to reject the applicant’s asylum application based on Article 1F of the Geneva Convention, since the applicant had worked for the Revolutionary Guard, which had collaborated with the Afghan communist security service KhAD, which committed crimes against the civilian population. It was found that the applicant himself had committed acts of torture. The authorities did not find it established that the applicant, if returned to Afghanistan, would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The applicant was issued with an expulsion order.
Complaint
The applicant alleged that his expulsion to Afghanistan would violate Article 3 (prohibition of torture) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). He also complained he did not have an effective remedy, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention.
Court’s ruling
Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13, the Court found that being able to appeal to the Regional Court of The Hague, the applicant had access to a remedy complying with the two necessary requirements: independent and rigorous scrutiny of a claim that there is a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, and a remedy with automatic suspensive effect. The Court therefore concluded that there was no violation of Article 13. The Court also found no violation of Article 3, explaining that the applicant failed to show that he would be exposed to a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to Afghanistan.
The Court found no indication that the applicant had attracted negative attention from any governmental or non-governmental body or any private individual in Afghanistan on account of his communist past, or any other personal element cited by him. The complaint based on Article 8 was considered inadmissible by the Court.