Communicated on 26 April 2019
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 3086/19
M.F. and Others
against Russia
lodged on 26 December 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the Russian authorities’ decision to remove the applicants, Iranian nationals allegedly converted to Christianity, to Iran, without the assessment of the consequences of their conversion.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the obligation of the competent national authorities to examine the substance of the applicants’ fears and to assess the risks they would face if removed to the receiving country, from the standpoint of Article 3 of the Convention, in the light of all the information brought to their attention (see, for instance, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§127 and 153, 23 March 2016; and M.A. and Others v. Lithuania, no. 59793/17, § 103, 11 December 2018), did the Russian courts at any point (either in the asylum proceedings or in the proceedings for the applicants’ removal) adequately assess the risk of ill-treatment the applicants would face if removed to Iran, including the consequences of the applicants’ conversion to Christianity?
In particular, did the court examined and assessed the credibility of the applicants’ arguments (i) regarding the first applicant’s criminal conviction and imprisonment for insulting the Prophet in Iran; (ii) regarding the second and third applicant’s role in assisting the first applicant in leaving Iran; (iii) regarding their conversion to Christianity, and (iv) other relevant arguments as well as (v) the authenticity of the relevant documents they submitted to the courts (see, for the relevant principles, F.G., cited above, §§ 153-158; T.M. and Y.A. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 209/16, §§ 25-28, 5 July 2016; H.A. and H.A. v. Norway (dec.), no. 56167/16, §§ 32-35, 3 January 2017; A. v. Switzerland, no. 60342/16, §§ 41-45, 19 December 2017; and H, I and J v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 27478/17, §§ 25-30, 19 November 2018)?
If not, has there been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention on that account?
2. In the light of the applicants’ submissions and adduced documents, would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if removed to Iran?
3. Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
4. Having regard to the applicants’ argument that, despite the fact that they had no command of Russian, they had not been assisted by an interpreter when detained on 13 June 2018, did the authorities discharge their obligation under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention to inform the applicants promptly, in a language they understood, of the reasons for their arrest (see Zokhidov v. Russia, no. 67286/10, §§ 169-175, 5 February 2013)? If not, has there been a violation of that Convention provision?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy