Communicated on 3 April 2017

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 40314/16 A.A. against Russia lodged on 13 July 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Syrian national. He is being kept in a detention facility for foreigners in the Moscow Region, Russia. The President granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). He is represented before the Court by Ms R. Magomedova , a lawyer practising in Moscow.

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

In 2011 he arrived in Russia on a multi ‑ entry visa which expired in 2012. He has not left Russia since and has not registered with the Russian migration authorities. In 2014 his applications for the refugee status and temporary asylum were refused by the migration authorities. In May 2016 the police found out that he had overstayed his visa. In May 2016 the first ‑ instance court found him in breach of residence regulations, fined him 5,000 Russian roubles and further imposed the penalty of administrative removal on him. Pending removal, he was to be detained in the centre for detention of aliens in the Moscow Region. In July 2016 the appeal court upheld the judgment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that in the event of his removal to Syria he would face a risk of death and/or torture there and that the domestic courts failed to examine his arguments to that effect.

QUESTIONS

1. The parties are requested to specify whether any domestic provisions define the countries to which a person may or should be removed in a case of removal from Russian territory. Will the applicant in the present case be sent to Syria if the administrative removal order is enforced? Reference is made, in particular, to the information provided by the applicant in the domestic proceedings concerning his family ’ s move to Turkey in March 2016.

2. Would there be a violation of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention in the event of the applicant ’ s removal from Russia to Syria (see L.M. and Others v. Russia , cited above; see also Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, §§ 241-50 and §§ 265-92, 28 June 2011 )?

- Does the current situation of widespread violence in Syria make any removal to that country per se incompatible with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?

- Are commercial flights available from Russia to Syria? At present, what are or what would be the practical arrangements for a foreigner ’ s removal from Russia to Syria?

- Are there sufficient guarantees in place for envisaging an alternative to internal flight and for averting a risk of ill ‑ treatment and a risk of damage to the applicant ’ s physical integrity upon arrival in Syria, then in transit and upon arriving in his hometown or settling in another part of Syria (see Sufi and Elmi , cited above, §§ 265-66 , with further references)?

3. Did the applicant have effective remedies for his above complaint under Articles 2 and 3, as required under Article 13 of the Convention?