Communicated on 3 November 2015

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 71676/14 Z.N. against the Netherlands lodged on 4 November 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Z.N., is an Afghan national, who was born in 1993 and lives in Schalkhaar . He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Babaian , a lawyer practising in Den Bosch.

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

3. The applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands on 25 January 2011 when he was 17 years old. In interviews with the immigration authorities he stated that he was ethnic Hazara , Shia Muslim and originated from Behsud district in Wardak province. When he was still very young, he and his family had moved to Iran where they had obtained lawful residence. However, when the family had gone back to Iran after having returned to Afghanistan in the mistaken belief that the situation there had improved, they had been unable to regularise their stay. The applicant had then been expelled to Afghanistan twice but each time he had returned to Iran to join his family. In early 2007 the family had returned to Afghanistan and settled in the house which his father had inherited from his father, situated in a village in Behsud district.

4. In the middle of 2007 the area had been attacked by Kuchi nomads. The applicant did not know how long the skirmishes between these nomads and the local population had lasted, how many people had been killed or wounded or how many houses had been destroyed, but the local men had succeeded in seeing the Kuchis off. Nevertheless, the Kuchis had returned a year later, carrying out their attacks on the region over a period of about three months. The applicant did not actually know whether these had been genuine Kuchi nomads or, as the local population believed in view of the amount of arms they were carrying, Taliban pretending to be Kuchis . One day, when the applicant was playing outside with eight other youngsters, the Kuchis /Taliban had shot and killed his nephew. The Kuchis /Taliban had also shot at the other youngsters and had seen in which direction they had fled. They had subsequently asked the village elders who these youngsters were.

5. The applicant had told his father and his uncle, his nephew ’ s father, what he had seen. His uncle had been shot and killed in fighting with the Kuchis /Taliban the following night, and the next night his father had sustained an injury. The family had fled to Kabul where, a few days later, his father had succumbed to his injuries and died. The remainder of the family had then gone to Iran. In 2010 the applicant had fled that country also, after a man had tried to rape him.

6. On 26 July 2013 the Deputy Minister of Security and Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie ) rejected the applicant ’ s asylum request. Although the Deputy Minister believed the applicant ’ s account to the extent that Kuchis or Taliban had attacked the village and that the applicant ’ s nephew, uncle and father had died as a result of those attacks, he did not consider it credible that the Kuchis or Taliban were looking for the applicant. In this connection the Deputy Minister took into account that it appeared from public sources that the conflict between Kuchi nomads and Hazara in the area from where the applicant originated concerned land issues and had been ongoing for years, and that according to the applicant himself, his father and uncle had already been involved in the fighting prior to the death of the nephew. Against that background it was not considered plausible that the Kuchis or Taliban had been searching for the youngster or youngsters who had witnessed the killing of the applicant ’ s nephew and who might have told their parents about that incident. Moreover, while it was true that the Hazara were in the minority in Wardak province overall, they constituted a majority in Behsud district. The Deputy Minister held that this was not altered by the fact that Hazara were being driven away from the area and were experiencing problems from the side of Kuchi nomads. As large groups of Hazara were living in the applicant ’ s home area, it was assumed that he would be able to hold out there and Hazara ’ s were not considered by the Deputy Minister to make up a vulnerable minority in the area.

7 . The applicant ’ s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Regional Court ( rechtbank ) of The Hague, sitting in Roermond , on 5 February 2014 and his subsequent further appeal was rejected on summary grounds by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ) on 2 May 2014. In accordance with provisions of domestic law, this latter judgment was sent to the applicant ’ s representative, also on 2 May 2014.

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicant complained that his expulsion to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. Firstly because of his Hazara ethnicity; secondly because he was seen by Kuchi nomads or Taliban as the youngster or one of the youngsters who had witnessed the killing of his nephew and had told on them, spurning tit for tat acts of revenge; and thirdly because he had in the meantime become westernised and it would be held against him that he did not comply with the norms and Islamic principles as interpreted by the Taliban. He further complained that, in breach of Article 13, he had not had an effective remedy for his complaint of a violation of Article 3.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1a. When did the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention start running in the present case?

1b. Has the applicant complied with this time-limit?

2. In the light of the applicant ’ s claims and the documents which have been submitted, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if he were expelled to Afghanistan ?

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT

1. Was the applicant ’ s legal representative informed beforehand of the date on which the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State would issue its decision on the further appeal?

2. When was the decision of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State received by the applicant ’ s legal representative?