CEDH · CASELAW;STATEMENTOFFACTS;ENG — 5 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9AB72ABC { width:297.83pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   24 April 2008     SECOND SECTION Application no. 12792/08 by Raha HOSSEINZADGAN against Turkey lodged on 14 March 2008   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Raha Hosseinzadgan, is an Iranian national who was born in 1978. She is represented before the Court by Mr L. Kanat, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2002, while living in Iran, the applicant had had a relationship with a man as a result of which she was tortured by her father. In 2004, she met another man who was an asylum seeker in Turkey. While being forced to marry her cousin, she left Iran with this man and arrived to Turkey on 28 August 2004. In September 2004 she got married before Turkish authorities. In December 2007 she got divorced as her husband, a drug addict, wanted her to prostitute. The applicant alleges that she was nevertheless forced to prostitute and raped several times. On 8 January 2008, the UNHCR's Ankara office recognised the applicant as a refugee. On 13 March 2008 the applicant was served the deportation order. It appears that she was accused of leaving the residence she was assigned without permission. On 14 March 2008 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Burdur police headquarters. The applicant alleges that she was not able to contact a lawyer with a view to challenging the deportation order issued in her respect. On the same day, the UNHCR's Ankara office sent a letter to the applicant's representative informing the latter that on 8 January 2008 they had informed the national authorities about their decision to grant refugee status to the applicant. According to the letter, the UNHCR was notified on 14 March 2008 that the applicant was about to be deported as her asylum application had been rejected by the Turkish Government. According to the letter, despite the requests filed with the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of the Interior for the extension of the applicant's residence permit, the applicant was taken to the Iranian border in order to be deported. On 14 March 2008, the acting President of the Section to which the case was attributed invited the respondent Government to stop the applicant's expulsion until the Court decides on the admissibility and/or the merits of the case. COMPLAINTS The applicant claims that were she to be deported to Iran, she could be subjected to torture by her family for having married a man of her own choice in Turkey. She also complains that she would be subjected to corporal punishment if returned to Iran for having had sexual relationships without marriage, a crime punishable by a hundred lashes in this country. The applicant also fears being a victim of an “honour killing” which might be committed by her relatives. She invokes articles 2, 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention and article 1 of Protocol No. 7. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, her rights under Article   3 of the Convention on which she now wishes to rely before the Court?   2.     In the light of the applicant's claims and the documents which have been submitted, would she face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if the expulsion order were enforced?