CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2025

.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 } Published on 7 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 37753/24 A.H. against Sweden lodged on 16 December 2024 communicated on 20 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the deportation of the applicant, a Sudanese citizen, from Sweden to Sudan, following her unsuccessful request for asylum in Sweden. The applicant complains that if she were to be deported to Sudan, she would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention mainly due to the general situation in the country and her particular vulnerability as a single woman without a male support network. She also argues that the domestic authorities failed to adequately assess this risk since they relied on outdated country information. The applicant’s request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted by the Court on 5 February 2025. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In light of the applicant’s claims and relevant country information, would she face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if she were deported to Sudan?   In particular, would she face such a risk on account of the general security situation in Sudan and her particular vulnerability as a woman?   2.     Did the domestic authorities fulfil their procedural obligation to conduct an adequate examination of whether the applicant would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention if she were deported to Sudan?   In particular,   did they carry out an adequate risk assessment, having regard to relevant and up-to-date materials originating from reliable and objective sources such as, for instance, other Contracting or third States, agencies of the United Nations and reputable non-governmental organisations (see, for example, F.G. v. Sweden [GC], no. 43611/11, §§ 117-127, 23 March 2016)?