FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 62806/00 by S. R. against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 23 April 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää ,

Mrs E. Palm , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr R. Maruste , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 November 2000,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The a pplicant is an Iranian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Sweden . He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Jönsson, a lawyer practising in Stockholm. The respondent Government were represented by Mr L. Magnuson, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 17 August 1988 the applicant arrived in Sweden and requested asylum. According to a memorandum written by the police authority in Stockholm the same day, the applicant stated that he had served four months in the military at the frontline in the war between Iran and Iraq but had deserted two months before his arrival in Sweden. Furthermore, he was a Mujahedin supporter and had distributed, inter alia , leaflets for this organisation. The authorities were not aware of his activities, however. A more comprehensive interview was held by the police authority in Lycksele on 12 December 1988. On that occasion, the applicant stated that he had been doing his military service in Iran as from April 1987 but had deserted in July 1988 after having been informed that he would be sent to the frontline. The applicant stated also that, although not formally a member of the Mujahedin , he had supported the organisation and taken part in its activities, inter alia by distributing leaflets and publications. He had started his activities in September/October 1987 while he was in military service. Allegedly, the Iranian authorities had eventually learned about the activities – revolutionary guards had found leaflets at his family’s home – and were therefore going to send him to the frontline. He decided to flee and so, after having been in hiding in Iran for some time, he left the country. His brother had been arrested by the revolutionary guards when they searched the family’s home and had not been released. However, the applicant had never been detained himself. The applicant alleged that, if returned to Iran, he would be executed as he had deserted from his military service and had been active for the Mujahedin .

On 23 March 1989 the National Immigration Board ( Statens Invandrarverk ) granted the applicant a permanent residence permit in Sweden. He was also provided with a Swedish alien’s passport. The Board did not find the applicant to be a refugee but nevertheless considered that, due to the prevailing political situation in Iran, there were compelling reasons not to return him to that country.

Allegedly, the applicant continued his political activities for the Mujahedin in Sweden by, inter alia , organising and participating in demonstrations.

In February 1994 the applicant was arrested and charged with drug trafficking involving four and a half kilograms of heroin. The District Court ( tingsrätten ) of Stockholm obtained an opinion of the National Immigration Board, dated 26 April 1994, in which the Board stated that, although Iranian authorities treated drug offences severely, the applicant would not risk being prosecuted again in Iran for the crimes that he had committed in Sweden. The Board thus concluded that there were no impediments to expel him to Iran.

By a judgment of 19 May 1994 the District Court found the applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and convicted him of an aggravated drug offence and of an attempted aggravated drug offence. He was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. Also, his expulsion from Sweden was ordered with a permanent prohibition on his return. With respect to the expulsion, the Court noted that the applicant’s sister was living in Sweden but that he had no other connection to the country. It had regard also to the severity of the crimes of which he had been convicted.

The applicant and the public prosecutor appealed against the judgment to the Svea Court of Appeal ( Svea hovrätt ). The applicant maintained his innocence and submitted in addition that an expulsion to Iran would expose him to a risk of persecution and ill-treatment by the Iranian authorities on account of his activities within the Mujahedin organisation in Iran and Sweden. He claimed also that he risked long imprisonment due to his desertion from the Iranian army.

By a judgment of 15 July 1994 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and increased the sentence to ten years’ imprisonment. Furthermore, agreeing with the reasoning of the District Court, the appellate court upheld the expulsion order.

On 5 August 1994 the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court ( Högsta domstolen ). He maintained what he had submitted to the Court of Appeal relating to the risks facing him upon return to Iran and added that he could be prosecuted again in Iran for the drug offences in question and that he could be punished also for having taken part in the trafficking of asylum seekers from Iran to Turkey. He claimed that he would risk the death penalty if he were to be returned.

Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court on 22 August 1994.

On 21 September 2000, shortly before the applicant’s release on probation, the police authority in Stockholm contacted the applicant concerning his expulsion from Sweden. The applicant stated that he wished to return to Iran and that he would contact the Iranian Embassy in Sweden in order to obtain a passport. He would thus not oppose his expulsion. A week later, the applicant not having been in contact with the embassy, the police authority called the embassy and was informed that they wished to meet the applicant in person. The applicant was escorted by policemen to the meeting which took place on 29 September. According to a police memorandum of 24 October, the meeting went well. At a later contact, however, the embassy required that the applicant write a “life resumé ” in order to get a laissez-passer . The applicant refused to do this and stated that he would no longer return to Iran voluntarily.

On 8 October 2000 the applicant was released on probation. He was immediately detained with a view to his deportation to Iran.

On 26 October 2000 the applicant requested the Stockholm police authority to refrain from deporting him and to inform the Migration Board ( Migrationsverket ; previously the National Immigration Board) that there were impediments to his deportation. The applicant referred to Article 3 of the Convention and to the same circumstances as submitted to the courts during his trial. He stated that it had become apparent during the expulsion proceedings that the Iranian Embassy was aware of his asylum application.  He referred also to the embassy’s requirement that he submit a statement giving details about his life, which he had not dared to do.

Having been informed by the police authority that they would not stay the deportation or refer the matter to the Migration Board, the applicant petitioned the Government under chapter 7 section 16 of the Aliens Act ( Utlänningslagen , 1989:529). This provision empowers the Government to revoke an expulsion order that has been imposed as a consequence of a criminal conviction, if it finds that the order cannot be enforced or there are other special reasons against upholding the order.

On 20 November 2000 the Government stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order until further notice following the Court’s indication of 13 November 2000, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court not to expel the applicant to Iran.

On 29 November 2000 the applicant obtained an opinion from Mr S. Mahmoudi , professor in international law at the University of Stockholm, which has subsequently been forwarded to the Government. In addition to giving an account of relevant Iranian legislation, Professor Mahmoudi made, inter alia , the following observations in regard to the applicant’s situation. As the Iranian authorities could be expected to know about the applicant’s asylum application and the reasons for his expulsion from Sweden, it is likely that he would be thoroughly questioned upon return to Iran. It is possible for the Iranian authorities to prosecute the applicant for the drug offences, although he has already been convicted and has served his sentence in Sweden. Previously, many people were sentenced to death and executed for drug offences, but today the usual practice is to impose long prison sentences. The death penalty is used only in a few cases involving repeated and organised large-scale drug trafficking. The applicant could also be sentenced to pay fines for having left Iran illegally and for having taken part in the trafficking of asylum seekers from Iran and he would risk a prison sentence for his desertion from the army. His involvement in Mujahedin activities is more difficult to assess; generally, however, the efforts of the Iranian authorities are mainly directed towards those who are more active members and have used arms against Government troops. Professor Mahmoudi maintained, however, that any prediction as to the outcome of a criminal case in Iran is difficult due to the courts’ arbitrary application of the laws. He thus concluded that it could not be excluded that the applicant would be sentenced to death. In any event, there is an apparent risk that he would be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a very long period of time or to corporal punishment for the drug offences committed in Sweden and other crimes allegedly committed in Iran.

On 19 December 2000, at the request of the Government, the Migration Board gave its opinion on the applicant’s petition for the expulsion order to be revoked. The Board stated that, according to consistent Iranian case-law, the Iranian courts do not consider a criminal case when the person involved has already been convicted and served his or her prison sentence abroad. The Board therefore maintained the assessment made to the District Court on 26 April 1994 that there were no impediments to the applicant’s expulsion to Iran.

The applicant’s petition for a revocation of the expulsion order is still pending before the Government.

On 6 December 2000 the Government decided that the applicant be released from detention. Instead, an obligation to report to the police three times per week was imposed on the applicant in accordance with chapter 6 section 5 of the Aliens Act. By a decision of 5 June 2001 this obligation was changed to two occasions per week. A decision of 4 December 2001 did away with the reporting obligation but ordered the applicant to hand in his passport to the local police authority if that had not already been done.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that, if he were to be returned to Iran, he might be subjected to torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment during questioning. Further, although he might not be prosecuted for other crimes, he risks being sentenced to death, corporal punishment or life imprisonment for the drug offences committed in Sweden. He invokes Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention.

2. In regard to the possibility of further prosecution and sentence for the drug offences, the applicant invokes also Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

3. Finally, the applicant alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the fact that the invoked impediments to his expulsion were not examined by the courts during the trial. Instead, only the Government will assess this issue.

THE LAW

1. The applicant claims that his expulsion to Iran would put him at risk of being subjected to torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment and of being sentenced to death, corporal punishment or life imprisonment, in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention. These provisions read as follows:

Article 2 of the Convention:

“1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

Article 3 of the Convention:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention:

“The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.”

The respondent Government point out that in 1989, when the applicant was granted a residence permit, the National Immigration Board did not find him to be a refugee. At that time, many Iranians arrived in Sweden and applied for asylum on account of having deserted from military service in the Iran-Iraq war and left the country illegally. Many of them were allowed to stay although they were not considered refugees. The Board has maintained its opinion when consulted at later occasions. The Government note also that the applicant was prepared to return to Iran when the police, in September 2000, planned the enforcement of his expulsion, but later changed his mind.

As to the likelihood of the applicant being subjected to retrial and double punishment, the Government maintain that there have been several cases where Iranian nationals have been sentenced to expulsion on account of crimes committed in Sweden. In many of these cases it has been alleged that the persons involved would run the risk of being sentenced in Iran for the same crimes. Many expulsions have in fact taken place and, to the knowledge of the Government and other competent Swedish authorities, it has not been shown in any case that such allegations have been correct. According to Iranian legal expertise, which the Embassy of Sweden in Teheran has consulted, the Iranian Islamic penal codes are silent on the subject of retrial and double punishment of Iranian nationals who have committed a crime in another country and who have already been tried according to the laws where the criminal act has taken place and have served the sentence according to a judgment of a competent court. However, according to general principles of law, retrial and double punishment of a criminal act is not lawful except for cases which have been explicitly stipulated in the Iranian legislation. The crimes for which the applicant has been punished in Sweden do not fall within this special category. Furthermore, the issue of double punishment is followed closely by the Swedish Embassy and other Western embassies in Teheran and according to their view, Iranian nationals do not run the risk of being retried and punished in Iran for crimes committed abroad. This has also been officially stated in a note verbale from the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in reply to an enquiry from a Western embassy in Teheran. Moreover, according to instructions on legal practice issued by the Iranian Ministry of Justice, double punishment shall not occur. As to the applicant’s claim that it had been made clear at his visit to the Iranian Embassy in September 2000 that he could be sentenced in Iran for the drug crimes committed in Sweden, the Government submit that there is nothing in the police memorandum of 24 October 2000 that indicates that this issue was discussed. They contend that there is nothing to suggest that the Iranian authorities are even aware of these crimes.

In regard to the applicant’s claim that he has been involved in the trafficking of asylum seekers from Iran to Turkey, the Government assert that the information submitted by the applicant is vague and unsubstantiated. It can furthermore be assumed that Iranian authorities do not regard trafficking in human beings as a serious crime, as cases where traffickers have been sentenced are not known. According to the Swedish Embassy, it is well known in Iran that several travel agencies in Iran assist people in reaching countries in Western Europe by way of illicit methods. Nevertheless, Iranian authorities have not taken any measures against such agencies. There are no indications that the alleged activities of the applicant are known to Iranian authorities and, in any event, they would only entail the risk of the applicant being sentenced to pay a fine.

As regards the applicant’s application for asylum in Sweden, the Government submit that Iranian authorities are no doubt aware that many Iranian citizens returning after lengthy stays abroad may have applied for asylum, but the Swedish Embassy is not aware of any case where a returning asylum seeker has been punished on account of such an application.

With respect to the applicant’s contention that he deserted from his military service during times of war, the Government maintain that he has not submitted any documentation showing that he participated in military service or that he was sent to or was active at the frontline in the Iran-Iraq war. The Government assert also that the applicant has given contradictory information as to when he commenced his military service and why and when he deserted. In any event, under section 40 of Iranian military penal code, a person who absconds from his service may be sentenced to imprisonment from six months to two years or to a prolongation of one year of his military service.

In relation to the applicant’s alleged activities for the Mujahedin , the Government contend that it is not likely that Iranian authorities, had they been aware of these activities, would have ordered the applicant to the frontline. Moreover, due to the severe repression of the Mujahedin in Iran during the 1980’s, the part of the organisation’s activities that did not cease were carried out with outmost caution. It is therefore unlikely that the applicant, in his capacity as a mere sympathiser with the Mujahedin , would have had such contacts with the organisation that he would have been entrusted with the task of, inter alia , distributing leaflets and publications. The applicant has also supplied contradictory information as to whether the authorities knew of his activities for the Mujahedin . As regards the alleged activities in Sweden, he has not submitted any documentary evidence. Nevertheless, in the Government’s view, these activities have not been of a nature or of an extent that they would have been of any particular interest to the Iranian authorities. 

In sum, the Government submit that no substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the applicant, if returned to Iran, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

The applicant contends that he was – and still is – a refugee. He alleges that the Immigration Board’s decision of 23 March 1989, which denied him refugee status without stating any reasons, and the Board’s later assessments have been wrong. When his expulsion was imminent, the applicant originally saw no point in applying for a revocation of the expulsion order as his statements had not been taken seriously in the earlier proceedings. Instead, he hoped to minimise his personal risks by contacting the Iranian Embassy himself to obtain travel documents and return without revealing anything about his background. However, he was taken to the embassy against his will by uniformed policemen. There he was informed that the embassy was aware of his asylum application and his conviction for an aggravated drug offence, and that he could be convicted again in Iran for this crime.

The applicant submits that the Government’s statement that Iranian Islamic penal codes are silent with respect to the possibility of retrial and double punishment of Iranians who have committed a crime abroad is incorrect; in fact, section 7 of the Act on Islamic Punishments provides that “every Iranian national who has committed a crime abroad and who is present in Iran ... will be punished according to the penal codes of the Islamic Republic of Iran”. This general provision gives the Iranian courts unlimited jurisdiction to decide when, how and for what types of offences an Iranian national who has lived abroad shall be tried in Iran. It also means that judgments rendered by foreign courts in principle are not recognised by Iranian courts, nor do they have to consider the fact that the person in question has already served a sentence abroad. As to the Government’s contention that, in practice, Iranian nationals do not run the risk of being retried and punished in Iran for crimes committed abroad, the applicant states that this is a mere claim and that no reliable statistics or other information has been produced to verify this practice. He also asserts that the whole legal system of Iran is characterised by total arbitrariness and that it is not possible to talk about “actual practice”. He refers in this, and other, respects to the above-mentioned opinion of Professor Mahmoudi .

The applicant states also that he has acknowledged, in public court proceedings, his political activities – which have continued in Sweden – and his involvement in the trafficking of asylum seekers from Iran. He points out that the court documents, including the judgment convicting him for drug offences, are public and thus available to the Iranian Embassy in Stockholm. Moreover, he refers to widespread espionage by the Iranian authorities against Mujahedin supporters.

The Court recalls that Contracting States have the right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its Protocols. However, expulsion by a Contracting State of an alien may give rise to an issue under Article 3 of the Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if expelled, would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the receiving country. In these circumstances, Article 3 implies the obligation not to expel the person in question to that country (see, among other authorities, the Chahal v. the United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I, p. 1853, §§ 73-74). Moreover, the Court does not exclude that analogous considerations might apply to Article 2 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention where the return of an alien puts his or her life in danger, as a result of the imposition of the death penalty or otherwise (see, e.g., Eur . Court HR, Bahaddar v. the Netherlands judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, opinion of the Commission, p. 270-71, §§ 75-78, and Sinnarajah v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 45187/99, 11 May 1999, unpublished).

The Court finds that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 are indissociable . They will therefore be examined together.

In the present application to the Court and in various submissions made during the asylum and criminal proceedings in Sweden, the applicant has alleged that he will be at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention for the following reasons: political activities in support of the Mujahedin , desertion from military service, involvement in the trafficking of asylum seekers from Iran, application for asylum in Sweden and conviction for drug offences in Sweden.

The Court notes that the applicant was granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden by the decision of the National Immigration Board of 23 March 1989 due to the political situation prevailing in Iran at that time. The Board, which had to consider the applicant’s statements regarding involvement with the Mujahedin and desertion from the military, did not consider the applicant to be a refugee. In subsequent opinions given to the District Court on 26 April 1994 and the Government on 19 December 2000 the Board, taking into account also the risk of further prosecution in Iran for the narcotics offences committed in Sweden, did not change its view on the applicant’s refugee status.

With respect to the alleged activities in support of Mujahedin , the Court notes that the applicant has not submitted any evidence of these activities, neither in regard to those carried out in Iran nor with respect to the continued activities in Sweden. Moreover, from the police memoranda of 17 August and 12 December 1988 it appears that he has given contradictory information on the question whether the Iranian authorities knew about his activities in Iran. Also, the Court shares the Government’s view that the alleged activities in Sweden do not appear to have been of a nature or of an extent that they would be of any particular interest to the Iranian authorities. In general, it should be noted that the applicant has stated that he has been a supporter but not a member of the Mujahedin organisation. Thus, he has not had a leading position or been actively involved in armed combat with Government troops. Referring to the opinion of Professor Mahmoudi , the Court therefore does not find it likely that the applicant would be the subject of any efforts of the Iranian authorities directed towards the Mujahedin and its sympathisers.

As regards his desertion from the military, in the police interviews in 1988, the applicant has given contradictory information as to whether he escaped from active service at the war frontline or from military training. In any event, the Court notes that the war between Iran and Iraq ended with the armistice in the summer of 1988, for which reason the applicant does not risk to be sent into active service if returned. It further observes that, under Iranian law, desertion is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or prolongation of the military service. The Court considers that, even if the applicant were to receive any such punishment for desertion, this does not amount to ill-treatment falling under Article 3 of the Convention (see, e.g., Pavlovic v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45920/99, 23 February 1999, unpublished).

The applicant has claimed also that his alleged involvement in the trafficking of asylum seekers from Iran and the fact that he applied for asylum in Sweden would put him at risk of ill-treatment upon return to Iran. However, the Court finds also in these respects that the penalties that could possibly be imposed on the applicant are not so severe as to raise an issue under Article 3.

The applicant’s final contention under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 is that he risks being sentenced to death, corporal punishment or life imprisonment for the drug offences committed in Sweden.

In this regard, the Court accepts that, although it is not clear whether the Iranian Embassy in Stockholm is aware of the applicant’s conviction, the judgments of the Swedish courts are public documents and may thus be consulted. Moreover, it cannot be excluded that Iranian authorities might wish to know the reasons for the applicant’s expulsion should he be returned to Iran. The Embassy’s requirement that he write a “life resumé ” before being issued with travel documents seems to indicate such an interest.

It therefore remains to be determined whether there is a risk of severe or even capital punishment in Iran for the offences in question. The Court is aware of the fact that very harsh sentences ­ – even death penalties – may be imposed for drug offences. It takes note also of the opinion of Professor Mahmoudi and the applicant’s submissions, according to which it is possible for the Iranian authorities to prosecute an Iranian national for drug offences committed outside of Iran, although the person in question has already been convicted and served his sentence abroad. It has regard also to the statements concerning the Iranian courts’ arbitrary application of the laws.

However, the Court further notes the respondent Government’s reference to the view of embassies of Western countries in Teheran, according to which, in practice, Iranian nationals do not run the risk of being retried and punished in Iran for crimes committed abroad.

The Court recalls that this information has been given by Governments in previous cases brought before the Convention institutions, most recently by the Danish Government in the case of Amrollahi v . Denmark (no. 56811/00, decision of 28 June 2001). In a decision of 7 April 1993 the European Commission of Human Rights noted that the applicant in question had not contradicted the information supplied by the French Government, including a report drawn up jointly by a number of foreign embassies in Teheran, to the effect that persons convicted of drug offences in Western countries had not been prosecuted on their return to Iran (see L. v. France, no. 18807/91, Decisions and Reports 74, p. 162).

Having regard to the above, the Court considers that it has not been shown that, in practice, persons who have been convicted for drug offences and served their sentences abroad will be tried or punished again in Iran.

In conclusion, taking into account all the submissions made by the applicant under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention, the Court finds that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to those Articles.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

2. In regard to the possibility of further prosecution and sentence for the drug offences, the applicant invokes also Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, § 1 of which provides the following:

“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.”

Recalling its above conclusion that it has not been shown that the applicant faces the risk of being tried or punished again in Iran, the Court notes that Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 does not guarantee respect for the principle ne bis in idem where a person might be tried or punished by the courts of different States.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

3. The applicant complains that the invoked impediments to his expulsion were not examined by the courts during the trial but, instead, will only be assessed by the Government. He invokes Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

The Court notes that the applicant was able to put forward his arguments with regard to alleged impediments to his expulsion before the courts examining the criminal case. Furthermore, the applicant has petitioned the Government which may, under chapter 7 section 16 of the Aliens Act, revoke an expulsion order that has been imposed as a consequence of a criminal conviction, if it finds that the order cannot be enforced or there are other special reasons against upholding the order.

Thus, even assuming that the applicant had an arguable claim of a violation of the Convention, the Court finds that he has had recourse to remedies that must be considered effective.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court by a majority

Declares the application inadmissible.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President