THIRD SECTION

Application no . 30162/13 S ’ Adiyo Boolow HAJI against the Netherlands lodged on 2 May 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms S ’ Adiyo Boolow Haji, is a citizen of Somalia. She was born in 1995 and is currently staying in the Netherlands. She is represented before the Court by Ms I.M. van Kuilenburg , a lawyer practising in Den Bosch.

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

On 2 3 February 2010 the applicant applied for asylum in the Netherlands. The final decision on this application was taken by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) o n 29 November 2012.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that there are substantial grounds for believing that she will be subjected to treatment prohibited by that provision if he were expelled to Somalia.

She further complains that the decision to reject her request for a residence permit was contrary to her rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

Finally, the applicant complains under Article 13 that she did not have an effective remedy in Dutch national law in terms of her complaint under Article 3 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS

1. Is it the Government ’ s intention to expel the applicant to Mogadishu? If so, for what reasons do the Government believe that the violence in Mogadishu is no longer of such a level of intensity that anyone in the city, except possibly those who are exceptionally well-connected to “powerful actors”, would be at real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention (see Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom , nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, § 293, 28 June 2011)? Would the applicant personally be at risk of such treatment if expelled to Mogadishu?

2. In the view of the Government, could the applicant safely reach her hometown of Beledweyne without being at real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3? Moreover, can it be said she has recent experience of living in Somalia and can therefore avoid coming to the attention of al- Shabaab (see Sufi and Elmi , cited above, § 295). In this respect, does it matter that the applicant claims that she should be considered as a single mother with a child?

3. Alternatively, is there an internal flight alternative elsewhere in southern and central Somalia that the applicant could travel to, to which she could gain admittance and where she could settle, as a single mother with a young child, without being exposed to a real risk of Article 3 ill-treatment (see Sufi and Elmi , cited above, § 294)?

4. Has there been an interference with the appli cant ’ s right to respect for her family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?