CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .sDA30A789 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } THIRD SECTION Application no. 21262/13 Faysal JAMA DUBAD against the Netherlands lodged on 26 March 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Faysal Jama Dubad, is a citizen of Somalia. He was born in 1979 and is currently staying in the Netherlands. He is represented before the Court by Ms P. Kramer-Ograjensek, a lawyer practising in Sittard. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 13 October 2009 the applicant applied unsuccessfully for asylum in the Netherlands. On 16 December 2010 he received his final negative decision. On 5 March 2012 the applicant applied for a second time unsuccessfully for asylum in the Netherlands. The final decision on this application was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) on 20 February 2013. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that there are substantial grounds for believing that he will be subjected to treatment prohibited by that provision if he were expelled to Somalia. QUESTIONs 1.     Is it the Government’s intention to expel the applicant to Mogadishu? If so, for what reasons do the Government believe that the violence in Mogadishu is no longer of such a level of intensity that anyone in the city, except possibly those who are exceptionally well-connected to “powerful actors”, would be at real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom, nos. 8319/07 and   11449/07, § 293, 28 June 2011)? Would the applicant personally be at risk of such treatment if expelled to Mogadishu?   2.     In the view of the Government, could the applicant safely reach his hometown of Goobweyn without being at real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3? Moreover, can it be said that he has recent experience of living in Somalia and can therefore avoid coming to the attention of al-Shabaab (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, § 295)?   3.     Alternatively, is there an internal flight alternative elsewhere in southern and central Somalia that the applicant could travel to, to which he could gain admittance and where he could settle without being exposed to a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment (see Sufi and Elmi, cited above, §   294)?