Communicated on 28 March 2019
SECOND SECTION
Applications nos. 57059/18 and 57156/18
H.S. against Turkey and O.S. against Turkey
lodged on 6 December 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicants are Iraqi nationals from the province of Al-Anbar, who fled to Turkey in 2015 allegedly to escape the ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) terror. In 2017 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants in Turkey on account of their suspected membership of the ISIS, and on 7 March 2018 a decision was taken for their deportation from Turkey for reasons of public safety. On the same day, they were taken into administrative detention. The application mainly concerns their threatened deportation to Iraq, where they would allegedly face a real risk of death and/or ill-treatment, without sufficient examination of that risk, and the unavailability of an effective remedy to review the lawfulness of their administrative detention. The applicants rely on Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention.
On 14 December 2018 the Court decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before it, to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be removed from Turkey until further notice. The Court further decided to give priority to the applications under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies in connection with their complaints, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
The applicants are requested to provide the Court with the copies of the petitions that they have submitted to the domestic courts (including the Kırklareli Magistrates’ Court, the Çorum Administrative Court and the Constitutional Court) in connection with their threatened expulsion and administrative detention.
2. Would the applicants face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if they were to be deported to Iraq? In this connection;
(i) Has a decision been taken as to the part of Iraq the applicants would be deported to?
(ii) Have the Iraqi authorities been informed of the criminal proceedings pending against the applicants in Turkey on the charge of membership of ISIS, or would they be so informed in the event of the applicants’ removal to Iraq?
(iii) Did the national authorities fulfil their obligation to conduct an adequate examination of the applicants’ allegations that they would be exposed to a real risk of death and/or ill‑treatment if removed to Iraq, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Auad v. Bulgaria, no. 46390/10, §§ 95-108, 11 October 2011; F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 127, ECHR 2016; and Babajanov v. Turkey, no. 49867/08, §§ 41-49, 10 May 2016)?
The applicants are requested to inform the Court as to the existence of any charges brought against them in Iraq in connection with their suspected affiliation with ISIS.
3. Were there any available domestic remedies by which the applicants could challenge the lawfulness of their administrative detention and obtain their release as appropriate, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
The parties are requested to submit a copy of all documents relevant to their observations, including documents pertaining to any asylum requests that the applicants may have lodged with the Turkish authorities. They are also requested to inform the Court of the developments in the criminal proceedings brought against the applicants in Turkey, and to submit a copy of the relevant case-file.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy