CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 30 October 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 15408/23 S.S. against Latvia lodged on 1 April 2023 communicated on 9 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns events in the vicinity of the Latvian-Belarusian border from 18 September 2021 until 9 March 2022 and the investigation into those events by the Latvian authorities. The applicant is a national of Guinea. According to the applicant, on 18 September 2021 he entered Latvia on foot. He was discovered by local people, who called the police. The applicant was allegedly pushed back on many occasions to the territory of Belarus, which was not a safe country, where he was not allowed to enter or, if he entered, he was pushed back to Latvia. The applicant’s requests for asylum were not registered and reviewed by the Latvian authorities, but fingerprints were taken from him. Allegedly, on some occasions, upon his return to Latvia, the Latvian authorities allowed him to sleep in a large tent on the Latvian territory. At   times, he was pushed back together with the applicants in the case of H.M.M. and Others v. Latvia (no. 42165/21, communicated on 3 May 2022) or other people. On other occasions, he and other people were not taken to the tent; they had to sleep in the forest in winter. On four occasions, the applicant was taken to Latvian hospitals for various health-related issues; he stayed there between one and six days each time. On 9 March 2022 the applicant was taken to a border guard station in Latvia and, subsequently, to a closed accommodation centre for detained foreigners in Daugavpils. There, on 11 March 2022, he submitted a request for international protection. The applicant’s allegations about violence against him in the vicinity of the Latvian-Belarusian border were examined by the domestic authorities. On   8 November 2022 the Internal Security Bureau refused to institute criminal proceedings for lack of a crime. By a final decision of 28   November 2022 a prosecutor upheld that decision. The applicant received that decision on 1   December 2022. According to the latest available information, the applicant is held in an open accommodation centre for asylum seekers in Mucenieki, Latvia. The applicant complains that from 18 September 2021 to 9 March 2022 he was returned to Belarus without his asylum claims having been registered and reviewed by the Latvian authorities. In this respect, he claims that Latvian officials intentionally subjected him to physical and psychological suffering to coerce him to abandon his intention to seek international protection in Latvia and that the conditions in the tent were inadequate (no basic amenities such as food, water, adequate medical care, appropriate shelter and clothing). He also claims that he suffered from violent and repeated pushbacks to Belarus. Lastly, he alleges that the Latvian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations. He relies on Article 3, taken alone and in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant within the jurisdiction of Latvia, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention, during all the time when the events complained of unfolded? Are all of the events complained of imputable to the Latvian authorities?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the applicant’s allegations of pushbacks, physical violence, verbal abuse and coercion to abandon his intention of seeking international protection in Latvia?   3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, was the domestic authorities’ refusal to examine the applicant’s requests for international protection from September   2021 until March 2022 in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the Latvian authorities consider the applicant’s claims that he would be exposed to a risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if returned to Belarus?   4.     Did the Latvian authorities act in breach of their duties stemming from Article 3 of the Convention in that the material and sanitary conditions in the tent in which the applicant was held on the Latvian territory during part of the period from September   2021 until March 2022 were allegedly inadequate and that at times he was left to sleep in the open air in winter? In particular, did the applicant have access to basic amenities such as food, water, adequate medical care, and appropriate shelter and clothing given the weather conditions?   5.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   6.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   7.     The Government are requested to submit all documents pertaining to the applicant’s complaints – his applications to various domestic authorities, any replies issued by those authorities, and transcripts of interviews held with the applicant, decisions authorising their detention and minutes of hearings held in that connection.   8.     The Government are asked to provide a copy of the investigation file (material no.   216/2022) in connection with which it was refused to institute criminal proceedings.