CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s750DB8D0 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } SECOND SECTION Application no. 7267/13 D.C. against Switzerland lodged on 22 January 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS     The applicant is an ethnic Tibetan and presumably a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. She claims that owing to her political activities she had to leave Tibet. The Swiss Federal Office for Migration declared the asylum claim of the applicant inadmissible and found that the applicant had previously lived in India, a safe third-country for Tibetans. Hence, it ordered to extradite the applicant to India. This decision was confirmed by the Federal Administrative Court under the condition that the applicant is in the possession of valid immigration papers and that the applicant will not be further extradited to China. A few weeks after the decision of the Federal Administrative Court the immigration papers of the applicant for India had expired. COMPLAINT Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant fears that upon extradition to India she will be further extradited to China where she would face torture again. QUESTIONS 1.     How and by which means has it been evaluated by the Swiss authorities that the applicant could risk treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in case of deportation to China?   2.     What kind of assurances can the Swiss Government provide to the Court in order to guarantee that the applicant is not automatically expelled from India to China?