CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Communicated on 3 September 2020 Published on 21 September 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23048/19 A.M.A. against the Netherlands lodged on 19 April 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a Bahraini national whose applications for asylum in the Netherlands, in which he contended that he was a member of a group systemically exposed to a practice of ill-treatment, were rejected. Upon his expulsion to Bahrain, he was arrested in that country and put on trial on allegedly false charges of, inter alia , supporting a terrorist group and possession of weapons. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. It is submitted that he was forced to confess and that detention conditions in Bahrain are severe. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     In the light of the applicant’s claims and the documents which have been submitted, did he face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention when he was expelled to Bahrain?   3.     Did the examination of the applicant’s asylum applications comply with the requirements for such examinations as set out in the Court’s case ‑ law (see F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§   119-27, 23   March 2016, with further references)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?