Communicated on 5 April 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 5115/18 M.A. and Others against Bulgaria lodged on 26 January 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the intended removal of the five applicants, Uighur Muslims from China, to their country of origin or another country (not specified in the removal orders).

The applicants left China on different dates and, passing through Turkey, entered Bulgaria illegally on 26 July 2017. They were apprehended by the border police, who on 27 July 2017 issued orders for their removal. Those orders, of which the applicants have not sought the judicial review, have entered into force.

After that the applicants applied, unsuccessfully, for asylum in Bulgaria.

On 26 January 2018 the Court indicated to the Government, under Rule 39 of its Rules, not to remove the applicants to China or a third country. This measure, initially temp orary, was prolonged on 1 March 2018 for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

The applicants argue that, if returned to China, they would face arbitrary detention, ill-treatment, or possibly be sentenced to death and executed. They claim that in the past they were arbitrarily arrested, ill-treated, or threatened by the local authorities, and that they face an even greater risk now, as persons having fled the country . They refer in addition to the general situation in the Chinese Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, where, according to them, the Uighur population has for years been the subject of governmental persecution and of an assimilation policy. They complain under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Additionally, they complain under Article 13 of the Convention of the manner in which their asylum requests were handled by the national authorities.

On 26 January 2018 it was decided to accord the case priority treatment and to allow the applicants ’ request for anonymity.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants exhaust the available domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, seeing that they failed to apply for the judicial review of the removal orders issued on 27 July 2017? Was the remedy at issue available to them?

2. In the light of the applicants ’ claims and the documents which have been submitted, would the applicants ’ lives be at risk (Article 2 of the Convention), or would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, if the removal orders against them are enforced? Would the applicants be returned to China or to another country?

3. Did the proceedings whereby the applicants ’ applications for asylum were rejected represent an effective domestic remedy under Article 13 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3? Were their claims of risk to life or of ill-treatment if returned to China thoroughly examined in the context of those proceedings?