Case Law

The Court had therefore to examine whether any effective guarantees existed that protected the applicants against arbitrary refoulement by the Bulgarian authorities to China, be it direct or indirect. No destination country had been indicated in the initial decisions for the applicants’ repatriation or in the expulsion decisions. According to the Supreme Administrative Court, the determination of such a country and the assessment of any risk the applicants would face if returned to China fell to be carried out in the process of implementation of the expulsion decisions. However, such an approach offered no guarantees that the Bulgarian authorities would examine with the necessary rigour the question of the risk the applicants would face if returned to the country they had fled. It was unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities would determine, if at all, the relevant risk. Lastly, there was no indication as to whether, if the authorities chose to send the applicants to a third country, they would properly examine whether they would in turn be sent from there to China without due consideration for the risk of ill‑treatment and even death. In sum, there were no effective guarantees, in the process of implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions against the applicants, that they would not be sent back to China.

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Expulsion - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Uighur | Countries: Bulgaria - China

26 February 2015 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Physical harm - Right to health - Torture - Uighur | Countries: Kyrgyzstan - Sweden

22 July 2014 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Muslim - Prison or detention conditions - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Right to liberty and security - Right to life - Uighur | Countries: China - Türkiye

4 July 2012 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Minorities - Muslim - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Uighur | Countries: Australia - China

20 April 2012 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Minorities - Muslim - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Uighur | Countries: Australia - China

12 December 2011 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Muslim - Persecution based on political opinion - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Uighur | Countries: China - New Zealand

30 November 2011 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Topic(s): Muslim - Persecution based on political opinion - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Uighur | Countries: China - New Zealand

13 September 2011 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Persecution based on political opinion - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Uighur | Countries: Australia - China

7 July 2011 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Country of origin information (COI) - Persecution based on political opinion - Persecution of family members - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Social group persecution - Uighur | Countries: Australia - China

12 July 2010 | Judicial Body: Australia: Refugee Review Tribunal | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Racial / Ethnic persecution - Uighur | Countries: Australia - China