## Facts

- Abdirizaq Salah Sheekh, a Somali national from Mogadishu and a member of the Ashraf minority group, fled with his family in 1991 due to the civil war and settled in Tuulo Nuh.
- In Tuulo Nuh, an Abgal clan militia repeatedly threatened and extorted the family; the applicant reported severe violence against his family (including killings and sexual violence) and threats and beatings directed at him.
- The applicant entered the Netherlands and sought asylum, alleging that his minority status and lack of clan protection exposed him to serious harm if returned to Somalia.
- Dutch authorities rejected asylum, reasoning that the applicant could relocate internally to a “relatively safe area,” particularly Somaliland or Puntland, and also disputed aspects of his personal circumstances (including his age).
- After unsuccessful domestic challenges, the applicant applied to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) to prevent removal.
- During the ECtHR proceedings, the Netherlands argued the case should be struck out because the applicant had become eligible for a residence permit under a provisional “categorical protection” policy; the Court declined to strike out.

## Issues

1. Whether expelling the applicant to Somalia, including via proposed internal relocation to Somaliland or Puntland, would expose him to a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether the applicant had an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13, to challenge removal in light of his Article 3 complaint.
3. What conditions must be met for an internal protection (relocation) alternative to defeat an Article 3 non-removal claim.

## Decision

- The ECtHR held that the applicant’s expulsion to Somalia would violate Article 3.
- The Court found that the Netherlands had not violated Article 13.
- The Court rejected the Government’s request to strike the case from the list despite the applicant’s eligibility under a provisional protection policy.
- The Court held the applicant satisfied the exhaustion requirement for domestic remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3 is absolute; a state may not remove a person where substantial grounds show a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the receiving country.
- Risk is assessed based on the foreseeable consequences of removal at the time of the Court’s review, considering both general country conditions and the applicant’s individual circumstances.
- In assessing risk amid widespread violence, individual factors (such as minority status, lack of protection, displacement, and return from exile) may combine with general insecurity to meet the Article 3 threshold.
- An internal protection alternative is not established by showing a region is comparatively safer; the state must show the individual can practically access the area, remain there lawfully or in fact, and live there without exposure to Article 3 harm or undue hardship.
- Internal relocation analysis must account for barriers to entry/residence, the availability of effective protection, the person’s support networks (including clan/family links), and the risk of being forced into unsafe conditions (including displacement camps) or onward removal within the country.
- Article 13 requires a domestic remedy capable of examining the substance of an Article 3 complaint and providing appropriate relief; a finding of an Article 3 risk does not automatically imply an Article 13 violation.
- Exhaustion does not require pursuit of a remedy shown, with suitable evidence, to be bound to fail.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that returning an Ashraf minority Somali with no clan protection and a history of severe persecution would breach Article 3, and it rejected internal relocation to Somaliland or Puntland because the state did not show those areas were realistically accessible and safe for him without undue hardship; however, the Court concluded that Dutch procedures provided an effective remedy under Article 13.


Salah Sheekh v. Netherlands, App. No. 1948/04 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2007)