THIRD SECTION
Application no. 4982/12
S. E. against Spain
lodged on 25 January 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms S. E., is a Nigerian national whose date of birth is unknown. Her estimated age is 18 years old. Her last permanent address was in Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. García Cores, a lawyer practising in Madrid within the NGO Spanish Committee for Assistance to Refugees (Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado, CEAR).
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 10 January 2012, the applicant arrived at Madrid-Barajas Airport from Nigeria. She used a false identity to enter into the country and was arrested at the border in order to be sent back to Nigeria. She was kept in a temporary holding facility at the airport (hereafter “the holding room”).
4. Shortly after, a phone call was received in the public telephone booths located in the holding room and a woman asked expressly for the applicant. This woman introduced herself as a lawyer and suggested that the applicant submit an asylum request. She further offered to assist the applicant in the asylum proceedings.
5. On 14 January 2012 an initial asylum interview took place in which the lawyer mentioned above attended as the applicant’s representative. The interview was suspended, however, when the applicant stated that she did not know her age and an age test was carried out. The applicant was never informed of the result of that test but suggests that she was attributed the age of 18 since no additional guarantees would have to be taken in her regard, as would have been the case if she had been considered a minor.
6. On the advice of other asylum seekers kept in the holding room the applicant changed representative, electing the Spanish Commission of Assistance to Refugees in which her current counsel works as a lawyer. The former representative never contacted the applicant again or ever requested any fees. In fact, she did not leave the applicant any personal data so as to be reached in case of need. The police file contains her name, but the police never communicated with her during the proceedings despite the victim’s allegations of human trafficking.
7. On 15 January 2012 the applicant submitted a request for international protection to the Spanish authorities. The applicant stated that she was the youngest child of a poor family living in Benin City in Nigeria. She alleged that four months earlier a group of around ten armed men had broken into her parents’ house and had threatened to set the house on fire and take her away if they did not pay a certain amount of money. As they could not pay that amount, they had taken her away. She suggested that those men had not abducted her sister because she was already a mother and they were only interested in “fresh girls”. She went on to state that she was taken away in a car with other girls, and that her abductors tied her wrists and covered her eyes. Around two hours later they arrived at a place where she spent four months locked up in a very small room without windows or furniture. She received very little food and was regularly beaten and sexually abused every two days by different men. She further contends that on 8 January 2012 she was told that she was going to be taken to Italy where she would be put to work as a prostitute. She tried to refuse, but she was beaten and threatened into submission. At a certain point her abductors also threatened to subject her to a ritual, but as she told them she was a Christian and was not superstitious, the ritual was not carried out. The threats continued, however. Subsequently she was taken to Lagos Airport where she was provided with a flight ticket to Madrid and a false Italian passport and a false Italian residence permit. She was told that someone would be waiting for her at Madrid-Barajas Airport. She concluded her statement by pointing out that she was afraid of being sent back to her country where those men could easily find her and take revenge. She also stated that she had not heard from her family since her kidnapping.
8. On 18 January 2012 the Minister of Home Affairs decided to apply summary proceedings in the case pursuant to section 25(1)(c) of Law 12/2009 of 30 October on the right to asylum and subsidiary protection and rejected the applicant’s request on the basis of section 21(2)(a) and (b) of that law. He considered that the reasons put forward by the applicant did not fall within the legal grounds for granting international protection, as “forced prostitution” could not be considered persecution in light of the Geneva Convention of 1951 in as much as no domestic authority was involved in the facts. The Minister also considered that the allegations she had made lacked credibility.
9. The Spanish Delegation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) had supported the admission of the applicant’s request. The High Commissioner had considered that the applicant’s allegations were not unlikely to be true and that her case could fall within the scope of Article 1 A of the Geneva Convention of 1951. The UNHCR had highlighted the particular vulnerability of alleged victims of sexual violence and sexual exploitation and referred to the need to create a sympathetic atmosphere. They had recommended that several interviews be held so as to build trust and obtain all the relevant information in order to rightly picture and assess the situation. In this connection, the High Commissioner had recommended the examination of the applicant’s request in ordinary proceedings in accordance with section 24 of Law 12/2009 as read in light of section 46(1) of that law, which provides for special treatment for people in a position of vulnerability (see § 18, below) so as to collect all the relevant information and adequately assess whether international protection should be granted in the case.
10. On 18 January 2012, two officers of the National Police Force against Criminal Organisations in the field of Illegal Immigration and Forgery of Documents (Unidad contra las Redes de Inmigración Ilegal y Falsifación Documental, UCRIF) took a statement from the applicant pursuant to section 59 bis of Law 4/2000 of 11 January on the rights and freedoms of aliens in Spain and their social integration (see § 18, below). Both interviewers were men and according to the applicant they had admitted that they did not have much experience in the field of trafficking in human beings. The applicant alleges that the police officers refused to provide her or her representative with a copy of the minutes of the interview, even though they had both signed them, and that no further measure was taken to complete the investigation; no further interview with a specialist in the matter was arranged, and a physical examination of the applicant was not ordered.
On 21 January 2012, the Delegation of the Government in Madrid refused to grant the applicant a recovery and reflection period on the ground that in the light of the interview performed by the police officers there was no reasonable sign or evidence that supported the applicant’s allegations that she was a victim of human trafficking. The administrative decision stated that during their interview with the applicant the police officers had not observed any sign of fear for herself or for her family and that her statements were inconsistent, particularly those in relation to the period of her kidnapping. The alleged deprivation of food, ill-treatment and sexual abuse had not apparently affected her health, this issue not having even been raised during the medical examination undergone by the applicant aimed at determining her age. The decision to deport her to Nigeria could therefore be immediately enforced.
11. On 20 January 2012 the applicant requested the re-examination of her asylum request. The UNHCR endorsed it again. It insisted that the applicant’s allegations were in line with the actual situation in her home country and the existing information on human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation in and from Nigeria. The existing reports also indicated a lack of effective mechanisms in Nigeria for the protection of victims of human trafficking. By a decision delivered on 23 January 2012 the Minister of Home Affairs confirmed its previous rejection.
12. On 23 January 2012 the applicant reported abdominal and vaginal pain and was taken to the doctor of Madrid-Barajas Airport, who referred her to La Paz Hospital where, after a detailed examination, she was diagnosed with hematuria, namely, the presence of red blood cells in the urine, as a result of a vaginal injury. The applicant contends that this corresponds to her allegations of having been repeatedly abused.
13. On 24 January 2012, the applicant brought contentious-administrative proceedings in the Audiencia Nacional against the decision to expel her to Nigeria (see §§ 8 and 11, above). At the same time, she requested the Audiencia Nacional to suspend her removal to Nigeria and grant her authorisation to stay in Spain until it had delivered a substantive decision on her request for international protection. The applicant stated that she suffered from hematuria and quoted several official and NGO reports in relation to the difficulties faced by victims of human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation in finding effective support in Nigeria.
14. On 25 January 2012, the Audiencia Nacional rejected the applicant’s request to have her expulsion suspended on three grounds: firstly, that the circumstances reported did not constitute a reason for granting international protection, since her alleged persecution had not been by the domestic authorities of her home country but by private individuals; secondly, that her statements lacked credibility, particularly given that her international protection request appeared to be an “alternative”, as she had requested international protection only after the Spanish authorities had refused her entry into the country; and thirdly, that the expulsion of the applicant would not deprive the proceedings of their legitimate aim.
15. On 25 January 2012 the applicant requested the Court to apply interim measures under Rule 39. Her request was granted on 26 January 2012. The Court invited the Spanish Government to stay the applicant’s removal to Nigeria for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.
16. On reception of the Court’s decision, the applicant’s representative immediately informed the domestic authorities that the applicant had been accepted by Proyecto Esperanza (“the Hope Project”), a religious NGO that assists victims of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The applicant was released from the holding room at Madrid-Barajas Airport on 30 January 2012.
B. Relevant domestic law
17. The relevant provisions of the Spanish Constitution read as follows:
Article 10
“1. Human dignity, inviolable and inherent rights, the free development of the personality, and respect for the law and for the rights of others are the foundation of political order and social peace.
2. The principles relating to the fundamental rights and liberties recognised by the Constitution shall be interpreted in conformity with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international treaties and agreements thereon ratified by Spain.”
Article 15
“Everyone shall have the right to life and to physical and moral integrity, and may under no circumstances be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment. The death penalty is hereby abolished, except as provided by military criminal law in times of war.”
Article 17
“1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom and security. No one may be deprived of his or her freedom except in accordance with the provisions of this article and in the circumstances and form provided by law (...).”
18. The relevant Spanish legislation on human trafficking and asylum provides as follows.
1. Organic Law 4/2000 of 11 January on rights and freedoms of aliens in Spain
Section 59 bis
“1. The competent authorities shall adopt the necessary measures for the identification of victims of trafficking in human beings in compliance with Article 10 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, of 16 May 2005.
2. Whenever they consider that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an illegal immigrant is a victim of trafficking in human beings, the competent administrative bodies shall inform the person concerned of the provisions of this section and shall submit, in accordance with the relevant procedure, a proposal to the competent authority for the adoption of a decision on whether a recovery and reflection period should be granted in the case.
The recovery and reflection period shall last at least thirty days and shall be sufficient for the victim to make a decision on cooperating with the authorities in the investigation of the crime and, if appropriate, in the criminal proceedings thereof. During the victim identification period and the recovery and reflection period no infringement proceedings may be instituted for a violation of section 53(1)(a). Any infringement proceedings that may have been instituted thereof and any expulsion or deportation decisions adopted will be suspended. Likewise, during the recovery and reflection period, the person concerned will be authorised to stay in the territory temporarily and the competent administrations will provide for his or her subsistence and, if necessary, for the security and protection of the victim and any of his or her minor or disabled children who were in Spain at the moment of identification. The provisions of subsection 4 of this section in relation to assisted return and the awarding of a residence permit and, if appropriate, a work permit for exceptional circumstances for those over sixteen, shall also apply to those dependents. Once the reflection period has expired, the public administration shall carry out a new assessment of the victim’s personal situation to determine whether an extension of that period is warranted.
(...)
3. The recovery and reflection period may be denied or revoked for reasons of public order or if it is found that victim status has been claimed improperly. The denial or revocation shall be reasoned and can be appealed against as provided by Law 30/1992 of 26 November on the Legal System of the Public Administration and on Common Administrative Procedure.
4. The competent authority may declare a victim exempt of any administrative responsibility and provide him or her, at its discretion, with assisted return to his or her home country or with a residence and work permit for exceptional circumstances if this is deemed necessary for the purposes of his or her cooperation in the investigation and punishment of the traffickers or in the light of his or her personal circumstances. Means for his or her social integration shall also be provided in compliance with the provisions of this Act. Likewise, pending the relevant proceedings to grant a residence and work permit for exceptional circumstances, the concerned person may be awarded an interim residence permit and work authorisation under the conditions established by statute.
In the proceedings for the authorisations mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the person concerned may be exempted from providing documents the provision of which might put him or her at risk.
5. The provisions of this section shall likewise apply to minor aliens, taking into account their age and maturity and, in every case, the pre-eminence of the best interests of the child.
6. The conditions for co-operation with non-profit non-governmental organisations which aim to host and protect victims of human trafficking shall be established by statute.”
2. Law 12/2009 of 30 October on Asylum and Subsidiary Protection
Section 17
“5. The Administration shall adopt the necessary measures to provide asylum seekers, when the case so requires, with appropriate treatment during the interview in light of their sex or of any of the other circumstances listed in section 46 of this Act. These proceedings shall be put on record.
6. Those in charge of carrying out the interview shall inform the asylum seekers of the procedure for submitting their request and assist them in completing their application forms, providing them with the basic relevant information. They shall also assist the applicants in determining the relevant facts in relation to their requests.”
Section 46
“1. Within the framework of the present Act, and within the terms established by regulation, the specific circumstances of asylum seekers or beneficiaries of international protection in a position of special vulnerability shall be taken into account, particularly children, non-accompanied children, the disabled, the elderly, pregnant women, one-parent families, victims of torture, rape or other serious psychological, physical or sexual abuse and victims of trafficking in human beings.
2. Given their special vulnerability, measures shall be adopted whenever appropriate to give international protection requests submitted by individuals belonging to the categories mentioned in the preceding paragraph special consideration. Likewise, special treatment shall be given to those who, as a result of their personal characteristics, could be subjected to persecution on grounds other than those specified in the present Act.
3. An applicant for international protection may be authorised to stay in Spain for humanitarian reasons other than those specified for obtaining subsidiary protection by the legislation on aliens and immigration.”
3. Criminal Code
Article 318 bis
“1. Whoever, directly or indirectly, encourages, favours or facilitates illegal trafficking or clandestine immigration of persons from [the country of origin] or in transit and with their destination in Spain, or with their destination in another country in the European Union, shall receive a penalty from four to eight years’ imprisonment.
2. Those who perpetrate the conduct described in the preceding paragraph to make a profit or using violence, intimidation, deceit, taking advantage of a position of authority or the vulnerability of the victim, or endangering the life, personal health or physical integrity of the individuals, shall receive a penalty in the upper half of the range. Should the victim be a minor or incapacitated person, the perpetrator shall receive a penalty higher by one degree than those established in the preceding paragraph.
3. The penalties listed in the preceding paragraph, with a total bar from six to twelve years on acting as an agent of authority or civil servant, shall be incurred if the actions were carried out through abuse of power.
4. Penalties one degree higher than those established in paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Article shall be imposed ... along with a bar on exercising a profession, trade, [or working in] industry or commerce for the term of the conviction, if the offender belongs to an organisation or group, even if transitory in nature, which perpetrates such operations.
In the case of managers, directors or those in charge of those organisations or groups, a penalty in the upper half of the scale shall be applied, and may be raised to the one immediately above it in degree.
When, pursuant to the terms established in Article 31 bis, a legal person is responsible for the offences defined in this section, a daily fine shall be imposed for a duration of two to five years, or a fine equivalent to three to five times the profit obtained if the resulting amount is higher.
Pursuant to the rules established in Article 66 bis, the Judges and Courts of Law may also impose the penalties established in sub-paragraphs (b) to (g) of paragraph 7 of Article 33.
5. The Courts of Law, taking into account the seriousness of the act and its circumstances, the situation of the offender and the purpose he or she had intended, may impose a penalty one degree lower than that prescribed by this provision.”
C. International treaties and other materials
1. The Palermo Protocol
19. The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (“the Palermo Protocol”), supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime 2000, was ratified by Spain on 21 February 2002.
Preamble
“(...) Declaring that effective action to prevent and combat trafficking in persons, especially women and children, requires a comprehensive international approach in the countries of origin, transit and destination that includes measures to prevent such trafficking, to punish the traffickers and to protect the victims of such trafficking, including by protecting their internationally recognized human rights, (...) ”
Article 3. Use of terms
“For the purposes of this Protocol:
(a) “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used; (...)”
Article 5. Criminalization
“1. Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the conduct set forth in article 3 of this Protocol, when committed intentionally. (...)”
Article 6. Assistance to and protection of victims of trafficking in persons
“(...) 2. Each State Party shall ensure that its domestic legal or administrative system contains measures that provide to victims of trafficking in persons, in appropriate cases:
(a) Information on relevant court and administrative proceedings;
(b) Assistance to enable their views and concerns to be presented and considered at appropriate stages of criminal proceedings against offenders, in a manner not prejudicial to the rights of the defence.
3. Each State Party shall consider implementing measures to provide for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims of trafficking in persons (...)
5. Each State Party shall endeavour to provide for the physical safety of victims of trafficking in persons while they are within its territory. (...)”
Article 9. Prevention of trafficking in persons
“1. States Parties shall establish comprehensive policies, programmes and other measures:
(a) To prevent and combat trafficking in persons; and
(b) To protect victims of trafficking in persons, especially women and children, from revictimization.
2. States Parties shall endeavour to undertake measures such as research, information and mass media campaigns and social and economic initiatives to prevent and combat trafficking in persons.
3. Policies, programmes and other measures established in accordance with this article shall, as appropriate, include cooperation with non-governmental organizations, other relevant organizations and other elements of civil society.
4. States Parties shall take or strengthen measures, including through bilateral or multilateral cooperation, to alleviate the factors that make persons, especially women and children, vulnerable to trafficking, such as poverty, underdevelopment and lack of equal opportunity.
5. States Parties shall adopt or strengthen legislative or other measures, such as educational, social or cultural measures, including through bilateral and multilateral cooperation, to discourage the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation of persons, especially women and children that leads to trafficking.”
Article 10. Information exchange and training
“(...) 2. States Parties shall provide or strengthen training for law enforcement, immigration and other relevant officials in the prevention of trafficking in persons. The training should focus on methods used in preventing such trafficking, prosecuting the traffickers and protecting the rights of the victims, including protecting the victims from the traffickers. The training should also take into account the need to consider human rights and child- and gender-sensitive issues and it should encourage cooperation with non-governmental organizations, other relevant organizations and other elements of civil society.”
2. European Union legislation on trafficking in human beings
20. Directive 2011/36/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 5 April, on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims has replaced the Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA. This Directive reinforces the commitment of the European Union and its Member States to the prevention of and fight against trafficking in human beings.
3. Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention
21. The Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, CETS No. 197, 16 May 2005 (hereafter “the Anti-Trafficking Convention”) was signed by Spain on 9 July 2008 and ratified on 2 April 2009. It entered into force with respect of Spain on 1 August 2009.
22. Its explanatory report emphasises that trafficking in human beings is a major problem in Europe today which threatens the human rights and fundamental values of democratic societies. The report continues as follows:
“Trafficking in human beings, with the entrapment of its victims, is the modern form of the old worldwide slave trade. It treats human beings as a commodity to be bought and sold, and to be put to forced labour, usually in the sex industry but also, for example, in the agricultural sector, declared or undeclared sweatshops, for a pittance or nothing at all. Most identified victims of trafficking are women but men also are sometimes victims of trafficking in human beings. Furthermore, many of the victims are young, sometimes children. All are desperate to make a meagre living, only to have their lives ruined by exploitation and rapacity.
To be effective, a strategy for combating trafficking in human beings must adopt a multi-disciplinary approach incorporating prevention, protection of human rights of victims and prosecution of traffickers, while at the same time seeking to harmonise relevant national laws and ensure that these laws are applied uniformly and effectively.”
It asserts, inter alia, that:
“Considering that trafficking in human beings constitutes a violation of human rights and an offence to the dignity and the integrity of the human being;
Considering that trafficking in human beings may result in slavery for victims;
Considering that respect for victims’ rights, protection of victims and action to combat trafficking in human beings must be the paramount objectives;
(...)”
23. Article 1 provides that the purposes of the Anti-Trafficking Convention are to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings, to protect the human rights of the victims of trafficking, to design a comprehensive framework for the protection and assistance of victims and witnesses and to ensure effective investigation and prosecution of trafficking.
24. Article 4(a) adopts the Palermo Protocol definition of trafficking and Article 4(b) replicates the provision in the Palermo Protocol on the irrelevance of the consent of a victim of trafficking to the exploitation.
25. Article 5 requires States to take measures to prevent trafficking and provides, inter alia, as follows:
“1. Each Party shall take measures to establish or strengthen national co-ordination between the various bodies responsible for preventing and combating trafficking in human beings.
2. Each Party shall establish and/or strengthen effective policies and programmes to prevent trafficking in human beings, by such means as: research, information, awareness raising and education campaigns, social and economic initiatives and training programmes, in particular for persons vulnerable to trafficking and for professionals concerned with trafficking in human beings.
(...)”
26. Article 10 sets out measures regarding training and cooperation and provides that:
“1. Each Party shall provide its competent authorities with persons who are trained and qualified in preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, in identifying and helping victims, including children, and shall ensure that the different authorities collaborate with each other as well as with relevant support organisations, so that victims can be identified in a procedure duly taking into account the special situation of women and child victims (...)
2. Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to identify victims as appropriate in collaboration with other Parties and relevant support organisations. Each Party shall ensure that, if the competent authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been victim of trafficking in human beings, that person shall not be removed from its territory until the identification process as victim of an offence provided for in Article 18 of this Convention has been completed by the competent authorities and shall likewise ensure that that person receives the assistance provided for in Article 12, paragraphs 1 and 2.
(...)”
27. Article 12 provides that:
1. Each Party shall adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery. (...)
2. Each Party shall take due account of the victim’s safety and protection needs.
(...)”
28. Article 13 on the recovery and reflection period states:
(1) Each Party shall provide in its internal law a recovery and reflection period of at least 30 days, when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person concerned is a victim. Such a period shall be sufficient for the person concerned to recover and escape the influence of traffickers and/or to take an informed decision on cooperating with the competent authorities. During this period it shall not be possible to enforce any expulsion order against him or her. This provision is without prejudice to the activities carried out by the competent authorities in all phases of the relevant national proceedings, and in particular when investigating and prosecuting the offences concerned. During this period, the Parties shall authorise the persons concerned to stay in their territory.
(...)
(3) The Parties are not bound to observe this period if grounds of public order prevent it or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
Articles 18 to 21 require States to criminalise specified types of conduct:
“18. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the conduct contained in article 4 of this Convention, when committed intentionally.
19. Each Party shall consider adopting such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences under its internal law, the use of services which are the object of exploitation as referred to in Article 4 paragraph a of this Convention, with the knowledge that the person is a victim of trafficking in human beings.
20. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the following conducts, when committed intentionally and for the purpose of enabling the trafficking in human beings:
a. forging a travel or identity document;
b. procuring or providing such a document;
c. retaining, removing, concealing, damaging or destroying a travel or identity document of another person.
21 (1) Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences when committed intentionally, aiding or abetting the commission of any of the offences established in accordance with Articles 18 and 20 of the present Convention.
(2) Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences when committed intentionally, an attempt to commit the offences established in accordance with Articles 18 and 20, paragraph a, of this Convention.”
29. Article 23 requires States to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to ensure that the criminal offences established in accordance with Articles 18 to 21 are punishable by effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions. For criminal offences established in accordance with Article 18, such sanctions are to include penalties involving deprivation of liberty, which can give rise to extradition.
COMPLAINTS
30. The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that her life and physical integrity will be at risk if she is ever removed to Nigeria.
31. She also complains under Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 that she has not had access to a remedy with automatic suspensive effect, as is required by the Court’s case-law in cases in which there are grounds to suspect that a person runs a risk of ill-treatment or torture if he or she is removed to a certain country.
32. In substance, the applicant also complains under Article 4 of the Convention that the respondent State has failed to take all the necessary measures to protect her from trafficking in human beings and to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of her arrival in Spain.
QUESTIONS
1. In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would she face a real risk of being killed or subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if the expulsion orders were enforced?
2. Would the applicant’s removal to Nigeria violate Article 4 of the Convention in the light of Court’s case-law on the matter and the international instruments ratified by Spain against trafficking in human beings (Siliadin v. France, no. 73316/01, ECHR 2005‑VII; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, ECHR 2010 (extracts); and V.F. v. France (dec.), no. 7196/10, 29 November 2011)?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention and the Court’s case-law on the matter (Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66, ECHR 2007‑II; Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, § 79, ECHR 2002‑I; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, §§ 290-293, 21 January 2011; and I.M. v. France, no. 9152/09, §§ 132-134, 2 February 2012)?
4. The Government are requested to submit the complete file in relation to this case, particularly a copy of the minutes of the interview of the applicant by the police officers in charge of determining whether she should be considered a victim of trafficking in human beings or not.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy