SECOND SECTION

Application no. 23273/13 Y. D. against Switzerland lodged on 30 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant is an ethnic Tibetan and a citizen of the People ’ s Republic of China . She is in possession of a Chinese identity card and an Indian Identity Certificate (IC).

In 2010 the applicant immigrated and sought asylum in Switzerland . After consultation with the Swiss embassy in India , the Swiss Federal Office of Migration declared the asylum request inadmissible and ordered the applicant to be expelled. This decision was upheld by the Federal Administrative Court . The court stated that the applicant had a valid Indian IC. Furthermore, the court observed that the applicant had lived in India , where ethnic Tibetans could live peacefully and had full access to working and educational structures. The court also submitted that expulsions of Tibetans from India to China were unknown.

THE COMPLAINTS

The appli cant fears that upon expulsion to India she will be further expelled to China , where she will face treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

She submits in her request for interim relief , as well as in her application , that the Swiss Federal Administrative Court did not take into account that her current IC issued by the Indian authorities is forged , whereas her Chinese documents are authentic. The enquiries by the Swiss embassy are not reliable, biased or independent. According to the applicant, the Swiss authorities have omitted to request a binding assurance by the Indian authorities that the applicant (1) can enter Indian territory, (2) safely reside there, (3) receive a valid IC and (4) will not be expelled at a later stage to China . Furthermore, even if the applicant ’ s IC is authentic, it is no longer valid. According to the applicant, Indian ICs must be renewed every year to prevent expiry. Since her IC has expired, she fears treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. She claims that ethnic Tibetans who have failed to renew their “Certificate of Registration” have been threatened by the Indian migration authorities with expulsion to China.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. How have the Swiss authorities assessed the risk that the applicant will face treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention i n the event of deportation to China ?

2. What kind of assurances can the Swiss Government provide to the Court to guarantee that the applicant is not automatically expelled from India to China ?