EHRM, 12-12-2006, nr. 3049/06

The applicant, Ms S.A., is a citizen of Afghanistan who was born in 1980 and lives in the Netherlands. She was represented before the Court by Ms J.A. Younge, a lawyer practising in Haarlem.

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

In 1996, the applicant married her cousin F. The couple remained childless. In 2001, the applicant and her husband fled from Afghanistan to the Netherlands where they applied for asylum on the basis of the husband's alleged problems with the Taliban. On 26 March 2001, an immigration official held a first interview (eerste gehoor) with the applicant in connection with her asylum request. A further interview (nader gehoor) was held on 27 July 2001. The applicant, who had been assisted by an interpreter during both interviews, availed herself on 14 August 2001 and 27 November 2002 of the opportunity to submit written comments on the records that had been drawn up of these interviews. As from an unspecified date, the applicant's husband started to receive medical treatment for a post-traumatic stress disorder.

In March 2002, the applicant gave birth to a child, whose physical features (complexion and hair) were alleged to be markedly different to those of the applicant and her husband.

On 26 February 2003, in view of the changed situation in Afghanistan, an additional interview (aanvullend gehoor) was held with the applicant who was assisted by an interpreter. On 13 March 2003, the applicant submitted written comments on the record drawn up of this additional interview.

On 4 April 2003, the Minister for Immigration and Integration (Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie) notified the applicant of her intention (voornemen) to reject the applicant's asylum request. The applicant submitted her views (zienswijze) on this intention on 28 April 2003.

On 3 June 2003, the Minister for Immigration and Integration rejected the asylum request filed by the applicant and her husband. On 30 June 2003, the applicant and her husband filed an appeal against this decision with the Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague.

On 18 October 2004, a staff member of a Netherlands refugee aid organisation informed the applicant's lawyer by way of a written memorandum that, in a recent conversation with this staff member, the applicant had said that her husband was not the father of her child and that he did not know this. Fearing to be sent back to Afghanistan where she risked to be killed if this became known — which was probable —, she had now decided to confess to it. She had not dared to tell her husband, but because the situation had become untenable she was planning to do so on 14 November 2004 when she and her husband would have a meeting with a mental health care counsellor. This document does not contain any mention of the child's physical features.

By letter of 28 October 2004, the applicant's lawyer transmitted the written memorandum of 18 October 2004 to the Regional Court, submitting that also for this reason the applicant risked exposure to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if expelled to Afghanistan. The lawyer's submissions were transmitted to the Minister who filed written comments in reply with the Regional Court on 2 November 2004.

On 11 November 2004, a hearing on the appeals filed by the applicant and her husband was held before the Regional Court. This hearing was attended by the applicant and her husband, who were assisted by an interpreter.

On 14 November 2004, in the presence and under the guidance of a mental health counsellor, the applicant informed her husband of the origins of the child. According to the applicant, her husband was obviously very upset but he refused to give any reaction. During the following months, he was under heavy medication (sleeping medication and tranquillizers), and did not speak with or touch the applicant. He further completely neglected the child since 14 November 2004 whereas before that date he had given the impression of simply not knowing what to do with a child in general in that he did not touch or mind the child very much.

On 3 February 2005, the Regional Court rejected the appeals filed by the applicant and her husband. As regards the applicant's submissions in relation to her child, the Regional Court held that these personal circumstances which had only been raised for the first time in the proceedings on appeal could not be regarded as new facts and circumstances having arisen after the taking of the impugned decision and which should be taken into account under section 83 § 1 of the Aliens Act 2000 (Vreemdelingenwet 2000), in that the applicant should have raised these circumstances at an earlier stage in the proceedings. It further held that it had not been argued and that it had not appeared that there were special circumstances on the basis of which this could not have been done earlier.

On 3 March 2005, the applicant and her husband filed an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division (Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak) of the Council of State (Raad van State). In these appeal proceedings, the applicant submitted that the child had been born after a fleeting sexual encounter she had had in the asylum seekers reception centre where she and her husband had stayed shortly after their arrival in the Netherlands, and that, as the child grew older, gradually more and more clearly different racial characteristics became noticeable, as a result of which the child obviously bore no resemblance to either the applicant or her husband.

The appeal filed by the applicant and her husband was dismissed by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division on 19 July 2005. It upheld the Regional Court's judgment. As regards the applicant's submissions relating to her child, it held:

No further appeal lay against this ruling. To date, the applicant's husband has not taken any initiative from which it could be concluded that he is considering a separation, divorce or to challenge his paternity of the child.

The applicant complained that she, if expelled to Afghanistan, would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to treatment in violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention in that she would either risk becoming a victim of an honour killing or, in application of Islamic law (sharia), be sentenced to death for adultery, possibly by stoning.

The applicant further complained that in respect of her complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, she did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.

The applicant complained that she, if expelled to Afghanistan, would face the risk of an extra-judicial killing, a death sentence and/or torture and ill-treatment as an adulterous spouse. She invoked Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention which provide, in so far as relevant:

Article 2

Article 3

She further complained that, in respect of these complaints, she did not have an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention, which reads:

The Court observes at the outset that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. However, the expulsion of an alien by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if deported, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving country. In these circumstances, Article 3 implies the obligation not to deport the person to that country (see, among other authorities, H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 757, §§ 3334). The Court further considers that analogous considerations apply to Article 2 of the Convention where the person in question, if expelled, would face a real and personal risk of being killed (see Headley v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 39642/03, 1 March 2005).

The Court notes at the outset that, by the applicant's own admission, her husband has not undertaken any steps indicating that he is considering a separation, divorce or to challenge his paternity of the child. The Court further notes that, although the applicant has been explicitly requested by the Court's Registry to submit within a reasonable time further materials, such as for instance photographs, substantiating her claim that her daughter was born out of an extramarital relationship and that this is more than obvious given the child's physical features which are markedly different from those of the applicant and her husband, she has failed to do so. Her claim in this regard therefore remains wholly unsubstantiated.

In these circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the applicant's complaint under Articles 2 and 3 must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For the reasons given above, the Court further does not consider that the applicant had an arguable claim of a violation of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention. Accordingly, her complaint under Article 13 must also be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention (see Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 27 April 1988, Series A no. 131, p. 23, § 52).

Declares the application inadmissible.

Vincent BERGER

Registrar

Boštjan M. ZUPANČIČ

President