CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2E520A3F { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)35 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights N. against Finland   (Application No. 38885/02, judgment of 26 July 2005, final on 30 November 2005)     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 referred to as “the Convention” and “the Court”),   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern the risk of ill-treatment in case of expulsion to Congo and the problem in assessing the evidence submitted by the applicant (violation of Article 3) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with Finland's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of - individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - general measures preventing, similar violations;   Having examined the measures taken by the respondent state to that effect, the details of which appear in the Appendix,   DECLARES that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)35   Information on the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of N. against Finland     Introductory case summary   The case concerns the decision to deny an asylum application lodged by the applicant, a Congolese agent belonging to the inner circle of the former president and who had fled his country in 1997. The competent national authorities considered that his declarations were not wholly convincing and ordered his deportation in November 2002. The deportation was suspended pending the judgment of the European Court.   The European Court, having conducted a fact-finding mission to Helsinki and received additional information, stated that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, if expelled to the Democratic Republic of Congo and that his expulsion would therefore constitute a violation of Article 3.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   No just satisfaction was awarded in this case.     b) Individual measures   The applicant's case was re-examined by the Directorate of Immigration on 16 January 2006. The Directorate referred in its decision to the European Court's judgment and granted the applicant a temporary residence permit for one year on the basis of his need for protection. The applicant now has a continuous residence permit which will be automatically renewed provided that he does not commit any serious offences.     II.   General measures   The judgment of the European Court has been published in the Finlex database and sent out to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Chancellor of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to the Directorate of Immigration.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent similar new violations in the future in Finland and as a consequence has fulfilled its obligations pursuant to Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 20 April 2007 at the 992nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies