FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 42255/18 M.H. against Finland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 16 June 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Aleš Pejchal, President, Pauliine Koskelo, Tim Eicke, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 September 2018,

Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the fact that this interim measure has been complied with and the subsequent decision to lift this measure,

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

1 . The applicant, Mr M.H., is an Afghan national who was born in 1997 and lives in Helsinki. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He was represented before the Court by Ms K. Hytinantti, a lawyer practising in Helsinki.

2 . The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Oinonen, from the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

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

4 . The applicant is a 22-year-old Hazara Afghan male. He moved from Afghanistan to Iran when he was five years old. The applicant ’ s biological parents died when he was young and he lived with foster parents in Iran. When he was 15 years old, his foster mother passed away and his foster father was granted refugee status in the United States. Since his foster father was not able to prove that the applicant was his foster son, the applicant remained in Iran without any guardian. During his time as an unaccompanied minor in Iran, the applicant was on one occasion raped by two men. Eventually, the applicant left Iran.

5 . On 8 November 2015 the applicant sought asylum in Finland.

6 . On 21 December 2016 the Finnish Immigration Service ( Maahanmuuttovirasto, Migrationsverket ) refused the applicant ’ s asylum application and ordered his removal to Afghanistan. The Immigration Service examined his application in relation to Kabul where the applicant, as a citizen of Afghanistan, had legal access and where most Afghan citizens who lived outside the country had settled after returning to their home country. The Immigration Service took into consideration up-to-date country of origin information and found that the applicant ’ s personal circumstances did not significantly differ from those of other returnees, who, according to the country information, account for a considerable percentage of the inhabitants of Kabul. The high cost of health care in some countries and the asylum-seeker ’ s lack of funds did not constitute sufficient grounds for issuing a residence permit. Moreover, the Immigration Service pointed out that public health care services were available in the largest cities, for instance in Kabul, Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif and the basic services were free of charge. Different pharmaceuticals were available through public healthcare services and from private pharmacies. Some state ‑ owned hospitals provided pharmaceuticals free of cost.

7 . By letter dated 27 February 2017 the applicant appealed against the Immigration Service ’ s decision to the Administrative Court ( hallinto ‑ oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

8 . On 23 February 2018 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal. Having assessed up-to-date country of origin information, it held that no available evidence permitted to conclude that Shia Hazaras were generally being persecuted in Kabul. According to the court, the preconditions for granting international protection were not met in the applicant ’ s case. Nor had any grounds been found for granting him a residence permit on a discretionary basis on humanitarian grounds. The court stated that the applicant ’ s integration in Afghanistan might, as such, be hampered by the long period he had spent outside the country. However, he had lived there as a child and his mother tongue was Dari, one of the most spoken languages in Afghanistan. As an adult male, healthy and able to work, the applicant could not be considered particularly vulnerable.

9 . By letter dated 6 March 2018 the applicant appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court ( korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) but withdrew his appeal by a letter received by the court on 28 March 2018.

10 . On 17 April 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court considered that the applicant ’ s appeal had lapsed as he had withdrawn it.

11 . On 17 April 2018 the applicant sought asylum for the second time. He argued that he should not be removed to Afghanistan, given his particular vulnerability because of the psychological problems he had developed as a result of the sexual attack suffered in Iran in 2015.

12 . On 11 May 2018 the Finnish Migration Service decided to refuse again his asylum application and to remove him to Afghanistan. The Service held that the applicant ’ s psychological problems had not been substantiated by any medical certificates. In any event, while there could be difficulties in finding adequate medical assistance in the countryside, in Kabul basic medical care and medicines were available, often free of charge. The applicant ’ s state of health did not make his removal unreasonable. He was not found to be at particular risk of further sexual exploitation.

13 . By letter dated 28 May 2018 the applicant appealed to the Administrative Court and requested a stay on the execution of the removal order. He argued again that he was at risk of being ill-treated or living in degrading conditions given his poverty, lack of any family or social network or knowledge of Afghanistan and due to his psychological problems.

14 . On 29 May 2018 the Administrative Court refused the applicant ’ s request to stay the execution of his expulsion order.

15 . By letter dated 7 June 2018 the applicant again requested a stay on execution of the expulsion order, submitting a report from his psychiatrist which stated that he had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (symptoms: sleeplessness, massive fears, constant anxiety, distressing flashbacks) and depression (based on losses in early childhood and his separation from his family). He was currently being treated with antidepressants and antipsychotic medication and would need psychotherapy at a later stage. His request was refused on the same day.

16 . On 7 June and 3 and 24 September 2018 respectively the applicant requested again a stay on execution of the removal order but the Administrative Court decided not to stay the execution.

17 . On 3 December 2018 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal and refused to stay the execution of his expulsion order. It held that the applicant ’ s state of health did not constitute a ground to assess the matter differently than the Immigration Service had done.

18 . By letter dated 14 December 2018 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, requesting also a stay on execution of the removal decision. In addition to his previous grounds for appeal, he also argued, referring to the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines of 30 August 2018 and the European Asylum Support Office (“EASO”) Country Guidance Report of June 2018, that he did not have any relatives left in Afghanistan and that he had no social network in Kabul. He pointed out that he had lived outside Afghanistan practically all his life, that he was traumatised and suffered from severe mental problems. He had been able to speak about the rape only after having received medical help for his psychological problems.

19 . On 18 December 2019 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s request for a stay on execution.

20 . On 14 February 2019 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

21 . On 17 April 2019 the applicant sought asylum for the third time. He argued that he should not be removed to Afghanistan given his particular vulnerability because of the psychological problems he had developed as a result of the sexual attack suffered in Iran in 2015. In Afghanistan he would have no access to medical care and rehabilitation. He had never been to Kabul and did not know anybody in Afghanistan. He had lost both his biological family and his foster parents in Iran.

22 . On 8 July 2019 the Immigration Service decided to refuse again the applicant ’ s asylum application. It held that the fact that the applicant was accepted on the assistance programme for victims of human trafficking did not have an effect on his need for international protection in relation to Afghanistan. No criminal investigation was conducted in Finland in his case of human trafficking. The applicant had been exploited at the age of 14-15 and many years had passed since. He was now 21 years old and able to work. He had two jobs in Finland. The applicant did not present any new evidence on his health problems and he would have access to medical care in Afghanistan.

23 . By letter dated 19 July 2019 the applicant appealed to the Administrative Court against the Immigration Service ’ s decision.

24 . On 7 February 2020 the Administrative Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal. It considered that the applicant ’ s application for international protection was to be considered a repeat application that did not contain any new grounds. There were no grounds to issue him a residence permit under the Aliens Act. Consequently, it was justified for the Immigration Service, on the grounds mentioned in its decision, to refuse the applicant ’ s asylum application.

25 . By letter dated 14 February 2020 the applicant requested leave to appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court.

26 . The applicant ’ s case is currently pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.

27 . On 14 December 2018 the applicant was accepted on the assistance programme for victims of human trafficking ( Ihmiskaupan uhrien auttamisjärjestelmä, Hjälpsystemet för offer för människohandel ).

28 . The Helsinki Police Department is currently investigating a criminal case of trafficking where the applicant is a complainant. The suspected offence relates to incidents that took place in 2012 and 2013 in Iran. The Helsinki Police Department heard the applicant concerning the matter on 14 February 2020, and it was estimated that in March 2020 the prosecutor would decide whether the investigation would be continued.

29 . According to Article 9, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of Finland ( Suomen perustuslaki, Finlands grundlag , Act no. 731/1999):

“The right of foreigners to enter Finland and to remain in the country is regulated by an Act. A foreigner shall not be deported, extradited or returned to another country, if in consequence he or she is in danger of a death sentence, torture or other treatment violating human dignity.”

30 . The Aliens Act ( ulkomaalaislaki, utlänningslagen , Act no 301/2004), which reflects the relevant EU law, regulates the entry, residence and deportation of aliens. Section 87, subsection 1, of the Act provides the following:

“Aliens residing in the country are granted asylum if they reside outside their country of origin or country of permanent residence owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ethnic origin, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion and if they, because of this fear, are unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.”

31 . According to section 88 of the Act (as amended by Act no. 323/2009):

“An alien residing in Finland is issued with a residence permit on grounds of subsidiary protection if the requirements for granting asylum under Section 87 are not met, but substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person, if returned to his or her country of origin or country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of being subjected to serious harm, and he or she is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail him or herself of the protection of that country.

Serious harm means:

1) the death penalty or execution;

2) torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

3) serious and individual threat as a result of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflicts.”

32 . Section 52, subsection 1, of the Act provides that aliens residing in Finland are issued with a continuous residence permit if refusing a residence permit would be manifestly unreasonable with regard to their health, ties to Finland or on other compassionate grounds, particularly considering the circumstances they would face in their country of origin or their vulnerable position.

33 . According to the most recent EASO (European Asylum Support Office), Country of Origin Information Report: Afghanistan – Security situation, of June 2019:

“Several sources consider the situation in Afghanistan to be a non-international armed conflict.

The UN noted in December 2018 that

‘ The security situation remained volatile, with incidents continuing at consistently high levels. While the number of security incidents in some categories decreased slightly, the overall number of casualties rose owing to an increase in the severity of certain attacks. [...] The southern region saw the highest number of incidents followed by the eastern and south-eastern regions. ’

According to the US Department of Defense, writing in December 2018,

‘ [t]he Afghan government maintained control of Kabul, main population centers, most key transit routes, provincial capitals, and a majority of district centers. In this reporting period, the Taliban capitalized on the freedom of manoeuvre they maintain in rural areas to mass combat power against poorly defended district centers and checkpoints. Despite the Taliban ’ s proclaimed intent to adopt a more asymmetric approach, the group continued to mass and conduct raids on checkpoints, district centers, and threaten population centers. These types of attacks did not result in significant expansion of Taliban-controlled territory; however, it did test the ability of the ANDSF to respond, resulting in over-extension of the ANA in certain areas. ’ ”

34 . According to the UK Home Office Country Policy and Information Note on Afghanistan: security and humanitarian situation, of July 2019:

“2.4.15 . In 2018 the highest number of civilian casualties occurred in Kabul, Nangarhar, Helmand, Ghazni, and Faryab provinces. Compared to 2017, Kabul saw a 2% increase, an 111% increase in Nangarhar, Ghazni 84%, and Faryab 1%. There was an 11% decrease in casualties in Helmand (see Civilian casualties). Most attacks in 2018 took place in the provinces of Badghis, Farah, Faryab, Ghazni, Helmand, Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Herat, although there was a 5% decrease overall in security-related incidents compared to 2017. Between 16 November 2018 and 7 February 2019, UNAMA recorded an 8% decrease in security-related incidents and a 61% decrease in suicide attacks, compared with the same period the year before.

...

8.2.5. Indiscriminate violence per province in Afghanistan, as of 28 February 2019 (a map at page 30):

Territories where mere presence would be considered sufficient in order to establish a real risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) QD.

The areas are: Nangarhar.

Territories where the level of indiscriminate violence reaches a high level and a lower level of individual elements is required to establish a real risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) QD.

The areas are: The provinces of Farah, Faryab, Ghazni, Helmand, Kunar, Kunduz, Laghman, Paktia and Zabul.

Territories where indiscriminate violence is taking place, however, not at a high level, and a higher level of individual elements is required to establish a real risk of serious harm under Article 15(c) QD.

The areas are: The provinces of Badakhshan, Badghis, Baghlan, Balkh, Ghor, Herat (except Herat city), Jawzjan, Kabul, Kandahar, Kapisa, Khost, Logar, Nimroz, Nuristan, Paktika, Sar-e-Pul, Takhar, Uruzgan and Wardak.

Territories where indiscriminate violence is taking place at such a low level that in general there is no real risk under Article 15(c) QD.

The areas are: The provinces of Bamyan, Daykundi, Parwan and Samangan, as well as Herat city and Mazar-e-Sharif.

Territories where no armed conflict within the meaning of Article 15(c) QD is taking place.

The areas are: Panjshir. ”

35 . The UK Home Office Country Policy and Information Note on Afghanistan: Hazaras, of August 2018, provides the following:

“2.4.5 In general, the level of state discrimination faced by Hazaras does not amount to a real risk of persecution and/or serious harm. However, decision makers must consider whether there are particular factors specific to the person which would place them at real risk. Each case must be considered on its facts with the onus on the person to show that the levels of discrimination they will face would amount to a real risk of persecution and/or serious harm if returned to Afghanistan.”

36 . The report by EASO: Afghanistan: Key socio-economic indicators, State protection, and mobility in Kabul City, Mazar-e-Sharif, and Herat City, of August 2017, sets out the following:

“According to a fact sheet by the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), IOM and ZIRF Counselling from 2016 ‘ [t]here is no public health insurance in Afghanistan [...]. The governmental public hospitals are offering free treatment services, but sometimes there might be lack of medicines, patients are referred to private medical stores to purchase medicines. The checkup, examination and laboratory services are free in these hospitals. There is a limited number of state owned hospitals in Afghanistan, which provide medical services free of charge ’ . However, according to expert on Afghanistan Antonio Giustozzi, it is common for doctors in public facilities to ask for money when seeing a patient. Corruption is believed to be ‘ driving up hidden costs for patients and providing a major barrier to accessing healthcare for those who cannot afford the under-the-table payments often required to pay for health services ’ .

Although basic services are provided for free, the overall cost of treatment remains high and that is the main reason treatment is avoided. The biggest costs are connected with buying drugs, laboratory tests, inpatient care, transportation, consultation fees and corruption.

Access to health care depends on the financial status of patients. According to MedCOI informants: ‘ Wealthier Afghans have access to private healthcare facilities in Afghanistan and sometimes abroad, as well as to the EPHS and BPHS systems. Those with less ability to pay can access only the BPHS and EPHS systems. The poorest, remotest segments of the population have no access to formal healthcare. ’ A simple consultation at a private facility costs at least $40.”

37 . According to EASO, Country Guidance on Afghanistan – Guidance note and common analysis , of 21 June 2018:

“ This subsection includes conclusions and relevant considerations, which should be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of IPA for particular profiles of applicants.

In summary, it could be substantiated that IPA in the cities of Kabul, Herat and Mazar-e-Sharif would be reasonable for single adult men and married couples without children, who have no additional vulnerabilities, even if they do not have a support network. In order to ensure their basic needs, such as food, shelter and hygiene, other profiles of applicants would in general need a support network in the area of potential IPA. However, additional individual circumstances may be relevant to take into account when assessing the reasonableness of IPA.”

COMPLAINTS

38 . The applicant complained that his expulsion to Afghanistan would be incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. He relied on (1) the worsened general security situation in Kabul where there was a real risk of serious harm due to indiscriminate violence; (2) the general living conditions in Kabul, as stated in the UNHCR ’ s Eligibility Guidelines of 30 August 2018; (3) the fact that he had no job, family or other network in Kabul and had lived almost all his life in Iran; and (4) the fact that he was particularly vulnerable because of psychological problems caused by a traumatic childhood experience (losing his parents) and a sexual assault he suffered in Iran in 2015 and since he had no access to support or adequate health care.

39 . The applicant further complained that to expel him before the Administrative Court had decided on his case would deprive him of an effective remedy and therefore violate Article 13 of the Convention.

40 . Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, that he would be discriminated against if expelled to Afghanistan simply for the fact that he was not an internally displaced person (IDP). According to the UNHCR, an IFA/IRA was generally not available in Kabul given the general conditions there. If returned to Kabul, the applicant ’ s position would be worse than that of an IDP since he had lived most of his life outside his home country.

THE LAW

41 . The applicant complained that his expulsion to Afghanistan would violate Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that he did not have an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention and that he would be discriminated against under Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 3, if expelled to Afghanistan.

42 . Articles 2, 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention read as follows:

Article 2 (right to life)

“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 (prohibition of torture)

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

Article 13 (right to an effective remedy)

“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.”

Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination)

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

43 . The Government argued that the applicant had not lodged his application with the Court within the six-month time-limit as required by Article 35 of the Convention. Nor could he be considered as a victim of any violation of the Convention as he had voluntarily given up his victim status when he withdrew his request for leave to appeal during the first set of proceedings. The applicant ’ s allegations under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 3 were based on hypothetical future events outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Finland and should therefore be rejected as being incompatible ratione loci with the provisions of the Convention. Moreover, the Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust the effective domestic remedies as he had withdrawn his request for leave to appeal during the first set of proceedings and the third set of proceedings was still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court. Nor had he raised the allegations under Articles 2, 13 and 14 in conjunction with Article 3 before the domestic courts. In the Government ’ s view, the applicant had abused his right of application as one of the purposes of his application to the Court was to use this fact in his new asylum application. In any event, the applicant ’ s complaints were of a fourth instance nature and thus manifestly ill-founded.

44 . The Government noted that the applicant ’ s asylum grounds had all been examined in three sets of proceedings, in all of which his arguments had been rejected. He had not raised any allegations under Article 2 of the Convention and had failed to demonstrate that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 upon return to his country of origin. A person who had lived outside Afghanistan for a very long time did not have a particular risk profile and was not generally at risk of persecution in Afghanistan. As to the complaint under Article 13, the Government pointed out that at the time of lodging his application with the Court, the Administrative Court had already issued a decision in his case. Nor had the applicant been expelled before the Administrative Court had issued its second decision. It was not shown that the remedy provided for the applicant was ineffective. The Government concluded that the applicant ’ s complaints were manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected pursuant to Articles 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

45 . The applicant argued that his deportation to Afghanistan might breach the absolute non-refoulement rule. He might be put in danger in Kabul because of his Dari language skills which could disclose his foreign or westernised origin. He might not be considered a good Muslim. He would also be deported by force by the police of a Western country. The applicant had no family or social network in Afghanistan. He was facing a risk of discrimination as a foreigner in his own country and because he was visibly a part of the Hazara minority. The applicant was suffering from sleeping and mental disorders, depression, memory troubles and post ‑ traumatic stress disorder.

46 . As to the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant maintained that he could have been deported before the delivery of the Administrative Court decision in December 2018. At that time, there were no effective domestic remedies left for him to use. Concerning his complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction of Article 3, the applicant emphasised that he had not lived in Afghanistan since his early childhood. His integration in Kabul would be unreasonably difficult or impossible and put him at risk.

47 . The Court reiterates first of all that, while the date of the final domestic decision providing an effective remedy is normally the starting ‑ point for the calculation of the six -month time-limit under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the responsibility of a sending State under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention is, as a rule, incurred only when steps are taken to remove the individual from its territory. The date of the State ’ s responsibility under Articles 2 or 3 corresponds to the date when that six ‑ month time-limit starts to run for the applicant. Consequently, if a decision ordering a removal has not been enforced and the individual remains on the territory of the State wishing to remove him or her, the six ‑ month time-limit has not yet started to run (see M.Y.H. and Others v. Sweden , no. 50859/10, §§ 38-41, 27 June 2013 ). Since in the light of the material available to the Court the applicant in the present case has not yet been deported, the six-month time-limit has not yet started to run for him and his application with the Court has been lodged in time.

48 . The Court notes that the Government made several objections as to the admissibility of the applicant ’ s complaint under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. The Court, however, considers that it does not need to resolve these issues as this complaint is, in any event, inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded.

49 . Since the applicant has not yet been deported, the question of whether the applicant would face a real risk of persecution upon his return to Afghanistan must be examined in the light of the present-day situation. The Court will therefore consider the applicant ’ s situation as it presents itself today, taking into account the historical facts in so far as they shed light on the current situation.

50 . The Court observes that Contracting States have the right as a matter of international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens (see Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 27765/09, § 113, ECHR 2012, and F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, § 111, 23 March 2016). However, expulsion by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if deported, faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3. In such a case, Article 3 implies an obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06 , § 125, ECHR 2008, and Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, § 93, ECHR 2014 (extracts) ).

51 . In order to determine whether there is a risk of ill-treatment, the Court must examine the foreseeable consequences of sending the applicant to Afghanistan, bearing in mind the general situation there and his personal circumstances (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom , 30 October 1991, § 108, Series A no. 215, and F.G. v. Sweden , cited above, § 114).

52 . As to the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, according to the most recent country of origin information (see paragraphs 33-34 above), the situation is not of such a nature that on this ground alone there would be a violation of the Convention if the applicant were to be returned to that country (see also J.K. and Others v. Sweden [GC], no. 59166/12, § 110, 23 August 2016). Nor is the specific situation of Hazaras such as to render the applicant ’ s expulsion incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention on its own (see paragraph 35 above). The Court has therefore to establish whether the applicant ’ s personal situation is such that his return to Afghanistan would contravene Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.

53 . The Court acknowledges that, in principle, an applicant has to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that, if the measure complained of were to be implemented, he or she would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3. Where such evidence is adduced, it is for the Government to dispel any doubts about it (see F.G. v. Sweden , cited above, § 120, and J.K. and Others v. Sweden , cited above, § 91).

54 . The Court notes that, in the present case, the applicant complained of his general living conditions in Kabul; the fact that he had no job, family or other network in Kabul and had lived almost all his life in Iran; the fact that he was particularly vulnerable because of psychological problems caused by a traumatic childhood experience of losing his parents and a sexual assault he had suffered in Iran in 2015; and the lack of access to support or adequate health care.

55 . Concerning the applicant ’ s health and access to medical care, the Court observes that the domestic authorities and courts held during the second set of proceedings that the applicant ’ s psychological problems had not been substantiated by any medical certificates. Subsequently the applicant provided such medical certificates to the domestic courts. The domestic authorities and courts further held that basic medical care and medicines were available in Kabul, often free of charge, and that the applicant ’ s state of health was not such as to prevent his removal to Afghanistan. During the third set of proceedings the applicant did not present any new evidence relating to his health problems.

56 . The Court agrees with the assessment made by the domestic courts. The state of health of the applicant – who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression – does not appear particularly serious, nor are his problems severe enough to prevent his deportation to Afghanistan. The Court is also persuaded, on the basis of the most recent country information available (see paragraph 36 above), that the applicant would have access to basic medical care and medicines in Kabul.

57 . As to the sexual assault, the Court notes that it took place in Iran several years ago when the applicant was 14-15 years old. The applicant is now going to be expelled to Afghanistan where he has not even claimed to have been a victim of sexual exploitation. Moreover, he is now a 22 ‑ year ‑ old adult man. The Court does not therefore find it likely that he would be at particular risk of further sexual exploitation in Afghanistan.

58 . The Court further notes that the applicant lived in Afghanistan until the age of five when he moved to Iran. He thus lived in Afghanistan as a child and he is familiar with the local culture. Moreover, his mother tongue is Dari, one of the most spoken languages in Afghanistan. It is also proven that the applicant is capable of working and supporting himself as he has had two jobs while living in Finland. As an adult single male, healthy and capable of work, the applicant cannot be considered particularly vulnerable, even in the absence of any support network (see paragraph 37 above).

59 . Having regard to all of the above, the Court concludes that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if expelled to Afghanistan in the current circumstances. Accordingly, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

60 . As to the complaints under Articles 13 and 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3, the Court notes that the applicant did not raise these complaints in a timely manner before the domestic authorities and courts. He did not raise the Article 13 issue in his letter of appeal to the Administrative Court during the second set of proceedings of which he complains. The complaint under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 3 has not been raised at all at the national level. The applicant has thus failed to exhaust the effective remedies in respect of these complaints. These complaints must therefore be declared inadmissible for non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 9 July 2020 .

Renata Degener Aleš Pejchal Deputy Registrar President