CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 février 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 }   Communicated on 23 February 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 57426/16 A.L. against Russia lodged on 4 October 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imminent expulsion of the applicant, a national of South Sudan, from Russia to South Sudan. Since 9   September 2016 he has been detained in the immigration detention centre in Russia. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Will there be a violation of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s removal from Russia to South Sudan? In particular, given 2014 UNHCR’s Non-Return Advisory for South Sudanese fleeing the conflict and Regional Emergency Update for South Sudan of 21 ‑ 28 August 2016 [1] , does the current situation in South Sudan justify the finding that a removal of the applicant to this country is incompatible with Article 2 or 3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have effective remedies for his complaint about a potential risk to his life or health in case of removal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, (i) have the Pechyorskiy District Court of the Pskov Region and the Pskov Regional Court carried out a thorough examination of a risk of death or ill-treatment, in line with the Court’s relevant standards and principles, and (ii) have they granted adequate redress to the applicant on account of substantial grounds confirming such a risk? The respondent Government are invited to refer to specific provisions of domestic law and provide examples of the case-law of domestic courts as regards the arguments relating to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.   3.     On the assumption that the applicant had effective remedies, as required by Article 13, in respect of his complaint about a potential risk to his life or health in case of removal, did he exhaust those remedies in the proceedings before the Pechyorskiy District Court of the Pskov Region and the Pskov Regional Court?   4.     Have the absence of a periodic review of the applicant’s detention and of a possibility to take proceedings with an application for release resulted in a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention?   [1] Available, respectively, at: http://www.refworld.org/country,,,,SSD,,52fa1ecd4,0.html (last visited on 2 March 2017) and   https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/50994 (last visited on 2 March 2017).