CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 4 décembre 2025

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .s829ABBD9 { border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-top:11.35pt; padding-bottom:10.98pt; vertical-align:middle } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D33099A { font-size:7.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10027FC0 { margin-left:5.4pt; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s976DE78A { height:12.8pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s66053943 { text-transform:uppercase } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22F01CEB { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Resolution CM/ResDH(2025)388 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights A.B. and Y.W. against Malta   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 4 December 2025 at the 1545 th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)     Application No. Case Judgment of Final on 2559/23 A.B. and Y.W. 04/02/2025 04/05/2025   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in this case and to the violation established if the applicants were to be returned to China without a rigorous ex nunc assessment of the risk they would face upon their return to the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region as Uighur asylum seekers whose asylum applications have been rejected;   Recalling the respondent State’s obligation, under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention, to abide by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:   -           of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and -           of general measures preventing similar violations;   Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with the above-mentioned obligation;   Having examined the action report plan provided by the government indicating the individual measures adopted to execute the judgment and noting that no award of just satisfaction was made by the Court in this case (see document DH-DD(2025)1219 );   Considering that the question of individual measures was resolved, given that the applicants have been granted refugee status after the Court’s judgment;   Recalling that the question of general measures required in response to the shortcomings found by the Court in this judgment continues to be examined within the framework of the S.H . case also in the light of the Court’s findings in this case, and that the closure of this case therefore in no way prejudges the Committee’s evaluation of the general measures intended to address the issue of returning applicants for international protection to their country of origin without assessing their applications according to which they would be exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of return, as well as the lack of an effective remedy;   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case;   CONCLUDES that the necessary individual measures have been adopted;   DECIDES to continue to supervise the adoption of the necessary general measures to address the issue of returning applicants for international protection to their country of origin without assessing their applications according to which they would be exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of return, as well as the lack of an effective remedy, in the case S.H. ;   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.