Communicated on 19 June 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 70333/16 Abdulkadir YAPUQUAN against Turkey lodged on 23 November 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Chinese national and an ethnic Uighur Muslim from Xinjiang/East Turkistan region of China. He was born in 1954 and is currently detained at the K ı rklareli Pehlivank ö y Removal Centre. In 2007 the applicant was recognised as a mandate refugee by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Turkey, where he lives since 2001. The application mainly concerns the applicant ’ s threatened deportation from Turkey to China, where he allegedly risks death and/or ill-treatment on account of his political opinions, or to an intermediary country where he will allegedly be deprived of effective protection against refoulement to China. The applicant also complains about the lack of medical assistance available to him at the K ı rklareli Pehlivank ö y Removal Centre, where he is held, the conditions of detention at that centre, the alleged unlawfulness of his detention and the alleged absence of an effective remedy whereby he could challenge his detention.

On 15 November 2016 the Constitutional Court decided that the applicant should not be removed to his country of origin or to Kazakhstan until further re-assessment of the applicant ’ s request not to be deported following receipt of the relevant information and documents.

On 30 November 2016 the Court decided, under Rule 39 of the Rules of court, that the applicant should not be removed from Turkey for the duration of the proceedings before the Court.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Is the applicant currently under a threat of deportation from Turkey? If so, what is the country of destination?

2. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Would the applicant face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention, directly or by way of refoulement , in the event of his deportation?

4. Has the applicant had at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his allegations that he would be exposed to a real risk of treatment in violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if he were to be deported, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities examine the applicant ’ s allegations under Articles 2 and 3 before taking the decision to deport him ? In this respect, what is the relevance of the Bakırköy Assize Court ’ s decision of 18 October 2016?

5. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention during his detention at the K ı rklareli Pehlivank ö y Removal Centre? In particular:

a. Are the conditions of detention compatible with Article 3 of the Convention?

b. Has the applicant received sufficient medical assistance during his detention as required by his health condition?

6. Has the applicant been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

7. Does the applicant have at his disposal a remedy by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his deprivation of liberty with a view to his deportation, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of the documents relevant to the assessment leading to the removal order regarding the applicant, documents relevant to the applicant ’ s request for international protection, documents regarding the medical screening and treatment of the applicant at the K ı rklareli Pehlivank ö y Removal Centre, and all other documents relevant to the aforementioned questions.