The applicant, S.A., who claimed to be a Sudanese national lodged two applications for asylum in the Netherlands, both rejected due to his lack of credibility regarding the country of origin. He claimed that if returned to Sudan he would be at risk of persecution as he belonged to the Tunjur (a non-Arab ethnic group associated with Darfuri rebel groups).

On 9 October 2015 the applicant was informed about his removal which he challenged before the Deputy Minister for Security and Justice. Before the Regional Court he also requested the suspension of his removal. On the basis of an interim measure granted under Rule 39 by the ECtHR, the applicant’s removal was stayed.

The applicant lodged a third asylum application, which was also rejected due to his lack of credibility with regard to his country of origin.

Before the ECtHR the applicant claimed that in the event of his removal he would be at risk of forced recruitment and persecution on account of his ethnic group and also due to the conflict in Darfur.

The Court found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention. It held that “unlike the situation in the cases of N.A. v. Switzerland and A.I. v. Switzerland […], there is no evidence before the Court of the applicant’s involvement in any Sudanese political opposition or Sudanese opposition group abroad which would consequently cause him to fear ill-treatment by the current authorities upon his return to Sudan.” Thus, there are no substantial grounds that upon removal to Sudan the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment.

The Court also concluded that there was no violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention as the applicant had an effective remedy against the decisions rejecting his asylum claims.