251 ‑ B, p. 33, § 29), the right to “personal development” (see Bensaid   v. the United Kingdom , no.

contexts, however, the Court must subject all the circumstances of the case to rigorous scrutiny, especially the applicant’s personal situation in the expelling State (see, among other authorities, Bensaid

they stress that the fact that the applicant’s circumstances in Kenya would be less favourable than those he enjoys in Sweden cannot be decisive from the point of view of Article 3 of the Convention ( Bensaid

even where the treatment in question arises not from the intentional acts of public authorities or non-State actors in the receiving State, but from the applicant’s own physical or mental health (see Bensaid

Italy , 24 February 1998, § 32, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ I); the right to “personal development” (see Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , no. 44599/98, § 47, ECHR 2001‑I); and the notion

The applicant’s case can also be distinguished from that of Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , no. 44599/98, (ECHR 2001 ‑ I) as he is facing not expulsion but extradition to a country where he has

  251 ‑ B), the right to “personal development” (see Bensaid v.   the United Kingdom , no.

the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, mutatis mutandis , Bensaid

The fact that the applicants’ circumstances would be less favourable than those they enjoy in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article   3 (see Bensaid v. the United

    The following year the Court delivered judgment in Bensaid v. the United Kingdom (no. 44599/98, ECHR 2001-I).

Croatia , no. 55164/08, § 60, 14 October 2010) and that mental health is a crucial part of private life (see , for example, Bensaid v.

  42758/98 and 45558/99, §   83, 17   February 2005), whether in terms of personality (see Bensaid v.   the United Kingdom , no.

provides protection of physical and moral integrity under the respect for private life head (see Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1993, § 36, Series   A no. 247 ‑ C, and Bensaid

that the applicant's circumstances in either of those two places would be less favourable than those he enjoys in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article   3 (see Bensaid

, the fact that the applicant’s circumstances in Sri Lanka would be less favourable than those enjoyed by him while in Sweden cannot be regarded as decisive from the point of view of Article 3 (see Bensaid

identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life were details pertaining to an individual's identity falling within the personal sphere protected by Article 8 (see, among other authorities, Bensaid

The preservation of mental stability is in that context an indispensable precondition to effective enjoyment of the right to respect for private life ( Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , 44599/98, ECHR 2001

Germany , judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 251 B, p. 33, § 29; Bensaid v. the United Kingdom , no. 44599/98, § 47, ECHR 2001-I).