CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 10 July 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10112/16 Imad AL HUSIN against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 17 February 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, who claims to be a stateless person after his Syrian nationality was allegedly revoked, was detained on 6 October 2008 on national security grounds. This is his second case before the Court. In a judgment of 7 February 2012 ( Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , no.   3727/08), the Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 concerning the applicant’s detention until 1 February 2011 (when a deportation order had been issued). The Court further held that there would have been a violation of Article   3 in the event of the applicant’s deportation to Syria. The present case concerns the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention with a view to deportation in a safe third country from 1   February 2011 until 17 February 2016 when he was released under preventive measures. The applicant also alleges that he could not effectively challenge his detention because he did not have access to secret evidence. While the Constitutional Court found a violation of Article 5 § 1 on this account concerning one part of his detention (between 14 March 2013 and 6 January 2014) no compensation was awarded. Lastly, the applicant alleges that his prolonged detention in a facility designed for short-term detention had been in breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. This complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? Has his detention been “lawful” within the meaning of paragraph (f) of this provision (see Kim v. Russia , no.   44260/13, 17   July 2014)? In particular, was there a realistic prospect of the applicant’s deportation to a safe third country? Have the administrative removal proceedings been conducted with special diligence?   2. Has the applicant had at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article 5   §   4 of the Convention (see A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.   3455/05, ECHR 2009)? In particular:   (a)     To what extent was the national security evidence open?   (b)     What role did the open evidence play in the determination of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention?   (c)     Did the applicant obtain at least an outline of the secret evidence against him?   (d)     Did withholding of some evidence cause a disadvantage to the applicant? If so, was the disadvantage counterbalanced by a special advocate or any other special procedure?   3.     Has the applicant had an effective and enforceable right to compensation as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention for his detention in the period between 14 March 2013 and 6   January 2014, which had been found to be in breach of Article 5 § 1 by the Constitutional Court in a decision of 17   June 2015?   4.     Has holding the applicant in custody for more than five years in a detention centre designed only for short-term detention amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?