EIT: Afganistaniin karkottaminen ei loukannut EIS 3 artiklaa

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin katsoi tuoreessa ratkaisussaan, että valittajalla oli ollut mahdollisuus tehokkaaseen oikeussuojakeinoon kielteisen turvapaikan osalta Hollannissa (EIS 13 artikla), ja että mahdollinen karkottaminen Afganistaniin ei saattaisi häntä kidutuksen tia muun epäinhimillisen kohtelun kohteeksi (EIS 3 artikla)

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The case of A.M. v. the Netherlands (application no. 29094/09) concerned the complaint by an asylum seeker that his expulsion to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of torture or of inhuman or degrading treatment.

In [a] Chamber judgment in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:

that there had been no violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken together with Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;

and that there would be no violation of Article 3 in the event of A.M.’s removal to Afghanistan.

The Court underlined that States were not required under Article 13 to set up in asylum cases a second level of appeal having a suspensive effect. The applicant, A.M., had had at his disposal a remedy for challenging the decision to deny him asylum which complied with the requirements of Article 13.

Furthermore, the Court came to the conclusion that A.M. had not demonstrated that he would be exposed to risks of ill-treatment in the event of his removal to Afghanistan on either individual grounds, on account of his belonging to the Hazara minority, or on account of the general situation in the country.

Koko lehdistötiedote, missä myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: here