5.  The applicant was born in 1969. At present he is detained in El Harrach prison in Algeria. 6.  The applicant left Algeria for Italy in 1991. He subsequently spent time in Spain, Switzerland, Canada, Pakistan and Afghanistan. In 1999 the applicant arrived in the United Kingdom where he applied for asylum. His request was dismissed. 7.  On 13 January 2001 the applicant was placed in custody in the United Kingdom as a result of several accusations made against him in different countries. The only one that was pursued was that of “association de malfaiteurs”. It was imputed to the applicant that, when living in Montreal, he had been involved in the supply of false documents which had been used by individuals in France when they had fled arrest for offences committed there. 8.  The United Kingdom extradited the applicant to France. On 7 April 2006 he was found guilty by a French court of involvement, as a member of an organised group, in the preparation, between 1996 and 1998, of a terrorist act in France and several other countries and of forging identity documents. He received a five-year sentence and was excluded from the territory of France. The applicant did not appeal and was released immediately upon conviction on the ground that he had served the sentence in the context of his prior detention while awaiting extradition. On 11 April 2006 the applicant arrived in Slovakia. 9.  In the meantime, on 1 June 2005, an Algerian court had convicted the applicant, in absentia, of membership of a terrorist organisation acting both in Algeria and abroad, and of forgery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. 10.  In January 2001 the applicant married a Slovakian national in London. A child was born to the couple on 2 August 2001. 11.  With effect from 25 October 2007 the applicant’s wife was deprived of legal capacity to act. The child was entrusted to the care and custody of the applicant’s wife’s mother. On 29 May 2008 the latter, acting as guardian of her daughter, petitioned for divorce. The divorce proceedings are pending before the Bratislava IV District Court; it is not clear from the parties’ submissions whether a final decision has been given. 12.  On 18 July 2006 the Migration Office dismissed the applicant’s first asylum request. The Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action challenging that decision. 13.  On 24 September 2007 the Migration Office dismissed his second request for asylum. It held that there were no obstacles to the administrative expulsion of the applicant to Algeria. On 30 October 2007 the applicant’s lawyer waived the right to challenge that administrative decision. It thus became final on that date. 14.  On 6 October 2008 the Migration Office dismissed the applicant’s third request for asylum. It further decided not to afford the applicant the status of “subsidiary protection” (doplnková ochrana) under the Asylum Act 2002. 15.  On 4 February 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed that decision. It ordered the administrative authority to establish all the relevant facts and to give comprehensive reasons for its conclusion. 16.  On 5 June 2009 the Migration Office again decided not to grant asylum to the applicant and not to provide him with subsidiary protection under the Asylum Act 2002. 17.  It was found that the applicant’s fears were subjective in nature and unsubstantiated by objective facts, that he had failed to show that he was subjected to persecution and that such persecution was politically motivated. If returned to Algeria, the applicant could seek a retrial on the ground that he had already been convicted in France and had served the sentence imposed in that context. Moreover, the applicant represented a security risk to the Slovak Republic and to society. His arguments under Article 3 of the Convention could not be taken into account because the matter under review concerned his asylum status and not his extradition. 18.  On 28 October 2009 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the Migration Office’s decision on the applicant’s third asylum request. 19.  The applicant appealed. He argued that he risked being subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and being sentenced to death if returned to Algeria. The applicant also argued that he had family ties in Slovakia and that he wished to take care of his wife, who suffered from an illness, and their son. 20.  On 30 March 2010 the Supreme Court upheld the Regional Court’s judgment of 28 October 2009. The Supreme Court held, in particular, that the applicant’s wish to maintain ties with his wife and child, who were Slovakian nationals, was not a relevant ground for granting him asylum. Furthermore, the applicant had been convicted in Algeria of criminal offences linked to the activities of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, the aim of which was to establish, by violent means, a fundamentalist Islamic State in Algeria. Armed attacks carried out by the group could not be considered as a means of political struggle justifying the applicant’s protection from persecution for political opinions within the meaning of the Asylum Act 2002. 21.  As to the alleged risk of the applicant’s ill-treatment in Algeria, the Supreme Court held that the Court’s case-law under Article 3 of the Convention concerned cases of expulsion or extradition but not those relating to requests for asylum. 22.  The applicant had not shown that justified reasons existed to believe that he could be persecuted for any of the reasons laid down in section 8 of the Asylum Act 2002, namely on the ground of his race, ethnic origin, belonging to a social group, for religious reasons or because of his political opinion. 23.  In the Supreme Court’s view, the purpose of granting subsidiary protection was to avoid unsuccessful asylum seekers being removed from Slovakia in certain justified cases. However, such subsidiary protection was excluded, inter alia, where there were serious reasons to believe that an asylum seeker represented a risk to society or the safety of the State in which he or she applied for asylum. Reference was made to Articles 12 and 17 of the Council of the European Union Directive 2004/83/EC and sub‑sections 2(d) and (e) of section 13c of the Asylum Act 2002. 24.  The applicant’s conviction in France, on 7 April 2006, of involvement in a terrorist organisation and his admission that he had been trained in Afghanistan in handling weapons and explosives, as well as other information gathered by the Office for the Fight Against Organised Crime, justified the conclusion that the applicant could provide assistance to persons suspected of involvement in terrorist groups operating worldwide. The decision not to grant subsidiary protection to the applicant was therefore lawful. That conclusion could not be affected by the express admission by the Migration Office, in the context of the asylum proceedings, that the applicant could be exposed to a real risk of inhuman treatment if returned to Algeria. 25.  Finally, the Supreme Court noted that the applicant had unlawfully left for Austria while proceedings concerning his asylum request in Slovakia had been pending and that he had lodged an asylum request in Austria. It concluded that the applicant was not genuinely interested in protection by the Slovakian authorities. 26.  The Supreme Court’s judgment was served on the applicant and became final on 16 April 2010. 27.  On 20 July 2006, the Border and Foreigners Police Department in Bratislava ordered the applicant’s expulsion and banned him from entering Slovakia for ten years. The decision became final and binding on 12 October 2006. The applicant was expelled to Austria on the basis of the decision. 28.  In May 2007 the Austrian authorities returned the applicant to Slovakia where he was placed under provisional arrest. On 20 June 2007 he was remanded in custody pending his extradition on a warrant in connection with the above-mentioned Algerian court’s judgment of 1 June 2005. 29.  On 30 November 2007 the Bratislava Regional Court gave its consent to the applicant’s extradition to Algeria. On 22 January 2008 the Supreme Court approved that decision. On 13 March 2008 the Constitutional Court suspended the effect of the Supreme Court’s decision pending its decision on the applicant’s complaint that he would run the risk of ill-treatment if he were extradited to his country of origin. 30.  On 26 June 2008 the Constitutional Court quashed the Supreme Court’s decision of 22 January 2008. It instructed the latter to re-examine the case with particular emphasis on the alleged threat of the applicant being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of his extradition. 31.  On 7 August 2008 the Supreme Court found that the applicant’s extradition to Algeria was not permissible. On the same date the applicant was released. 32.  In its judgment the Supreme Court relied on a number of international documents, such as reports of the UN Human Rights Committee of 2007 and the UN Committee against Torture of 2008, a document prepared by the UNHCR, documents issued by Amnesty International, the United States Department of State, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Human Rights Watch and the Court’s judgment in Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, ECHR 2008). 33.  In particular, the Supreme Court referred to the broad powers of investigation of the Department of Intelligence and Security (DRS), documented reports on detention of suspects incommunicado in secret DRS centres, and numerous reports of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment of people at the hands of the DRS. The information available indicated that the DRS had systematically used torture and other forms of ill-treatment in respect of individuals deemed to have information about terrorist activities. 34.  Furthermore, the law and practice in Algeria did not exclude the use in judicial proceedings of evidence which had been extracted under torture. The Algerian authorities had refused to co-operate with special rapporteurs or working groups established within the UN system and with non-governmental organisations with a view to clarifying the position. Similarly, the Algerian authorities had refused to allow monitoring the situation of people who had been returned to that country. 35.  The Supreme Court noted that the relevant regulation did not list Algeria as a safe country of origin. It concluded that there were justified reasons to fear that the applicant would be exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention in the event of his extradition to Algeria. 36.  Subsequently the applicant was apprehended and placed in a detention centre for foreigners in Medveďov on the basis of the Border and Foreigners Police decision of 7 August 2008. Reference was made to the above-mentioned decision of 20 July 2006 to expel the applicant and to exclude him from the territory of Slovakia for ten years. The decision stated that proceedings concerning the applicant’s expulsion were still under way. 37.  On 17 October 2008 the applicant requested leave to stay in Slovakia (tolerovaný pobyt). The police dismissed the request. 38.  On 3 February 2009 the applicant was released from the detention centre for foreigners in Medveďov. He was placed in an accommodation facility for asylum seekers in Opatovská Nová Ves and, later, in a similar facility in Rohanovce. During his stay in those facilities the applicant’s freedom of movement was restricted. He unsuccessfully sought redress before the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, which decided on his claim on 3 March 2009 and 16 December 2009 respectively. 39.  On 19 December 2009 the applicant left the facility in Rohanovce and arrived in a centre for refugees in Austria. The Austrian authorities returned him to Slovakia on 11 March 2010. 40.  On 22 April 2010 the Minister of the Interior informed the media that the applicant had been expelled from Slovakia and escorted to Algeria in accordance with the decision of the Border and Foreigners Police Department in Bratislava of 20 July 2006. The applicant’s representative learned about his expulsion from press articles. 41.  A letter from the Algerian Ministry of Justice of 2 July 2007 indicated that the Algiers Criminal Court had convicted the applicant in absentia, on 1 June 2005, of belonging to a terrorist organisation acting both in Algeria and abroad and of forgery under Articles 87bis, 87bis §§ 3 and 6 and Article 222 of the Criminal Code. His extradition was requested with a view to re-trying him for the same offences. His previous conviction in absentia would lose effect upon his return to Algeria pursuant to Article 326 of the Criminal Code. In the event of his extradition the applicant would have an adversarial trial before the criminal court, the judgment of which could be appealed against to the Supreme Court. Assistance by legal counsel was mandatory in such proceedings. Under the Criminal Code the offences imputed to the applicant were not punishable by capital penalty. 42.  In a letter of 25 September 2007 a representative of the Algerian Ministry of Justice indicated that his country had not yet ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Nevertheless, the law in force established a system of control permitting detained persons to seek redress in the event of a breach of their rights. Furthermore, the collaborators of the International Committee of the Red Cross had the possibility of visiting detained persons in private. Torture and other forms of ill-treatment were subject to heavy penalties under the Algerian Criminal Code. 43.  In a letter of 22 September 2010 the Algerian Ministry of Justice indicated that the applicant’s conviction by the judgment of 1 June 2005 had lost effect following his return to Algeria. He was being detained in El Harrach prison under an order issued by the indictment chamber of the Algiers Criminal Court. The applicant had the right to meet an advocate in private, to receive visits by members of his family, to file complaints and to medical care. The applicant’s trial was scheduled for October 2010. He had the right to assistance by counsel and could avail himself of a variety of procedural rights incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finally, the letter indicated that several persons suspected of terrorism had been extradited or expelled to Algeria from the United Kingdom, Spain or the United States and that all those persons had been treated in accordance with the law. 44.  On 13 December 2010 the Slovakian Ministry of the Interior asked the Algerian Embassy in Vienna for a visit of the former’s State Secretary to be arranged during which he could discuss the applicant’s situation with the Algerian penitentiary administration. The Government submitted no further information as regards that initiative. 45.  In a verbal note of 5 April 2011 the Algerian Embassy in Vienna informed the Slovakian Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Algiers Criminal Court had convicted the applicant, on 12 January 2011, of having belonged to a terrorist group acting abroad. The trial had been public and covered by the media and the applicant had been defended by counsel of his choice. He had been sentenced to a three-year prison term with twelve months suspended and to a fine of 500,000 Algerian dinars. The applicant had also been prohibited from exercising public functions after his release and from exercising his property rights. 46.  The verbal note further stated that the charges of having belonged to a terrorist group acting within Algeria and of complicity in forgery and use of forgeries had not been upheld by the tribunal. Both the prosecution and the applicant’s counsel had appealed against the judgment on 17 January 2011. 47.  No further information has been provided. 48.  On 18 July 2008 the Acting President of the Court’s Chamber decided, in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court, to indicate to the respondent Government, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be extradited to Algeria. 49.  On 13 August 2008 the Acting President of the Chamber again decided to indicate to the respondent Government under Rule 39 that the applicant should not be expelled to Algeria. The measure was to remain in force “for a period of two weeks following the outcome of the asylum proceedings, the ensuing expulsion proceedings as the case [might] be and, as appropriate, of any complaint which [the applicant] lodge[d] with the Constitutional Court in respect of those proceedings.” 50.  On 15 April 2010 the applicant’s legal representative requested the Court to clarify the conditions of the interim measure of 13 August 2008. The advocate explained that the applicant’s asylum case had been dismissed by the Supreme Court two weeks before and, in the absence of the written version of the judgment with reasons, the applicant had not had an opportunity to challenge it before the Constitutional Court. 51.  On 16 April 2010 the Section Registrar informed the applicant that, in applying Rule 39, the Acting President had wished to ensure that the applicant would not be expelled before he had exhausted domestic remedies. The relevant part of the letter reads:
“The Rule 39 measure remains in force until the Constitutional Court has pronounced on the applicant’s constitutional complaint.
It is clear that the applicant needs the reasons given by the Supreme Court for refusing his asylum case to enable him to lodge a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution with the Constitutional Court.
The two-week period referred to in the Registry’s letter of 13 August 2008 runs from the date on which the final decision is given with reasons and is intended to allow the Court, in the light of the reasons given by the Constitutional Court, to decide whether to lift or continue to apply Rule 39.” 52.  A copy of the letter was sent to the Government with specific mention that the Rule 39 measure was still in force. 53.  On 22 April 2010 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that it was impossible to contact the applicant and that, according to media reports, he had been expelled to Algeria earlier that week. 54.  On 22 April 2010, on instruction by the President of the Section, the Section Registrar requested the Government to confirm or deny the reports of the applicant’s expulsion. 55.  On 26 April 2010 the Government informed the Court that the applicant had been expelled on 19 April 2010. The expulsion had been carried out on the basis of the final and binding decision of the Border and Foreigners Police Department of 20 July 2006. Since the Supreme Court’s judgment in the asylum proceedings had become final on 16 April 2010, on the national level the applicant was considered to be a foreigner without permission to stay in Slovakia. 56.  On 28 April 2010 the Registrar of the Court sent the following letter to the Government:
“The President of the Court ... has instructed me to express on his behalf his profound regret at the decision taken by your authorities to extradite Mr Mustapha Labsi to Algeria in disrespect of the Court’s interim measure adopted under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
The President has noted in this connection that on 16 April 2010 your authorities were reminded in clear terms by the Registrar of Section IV of the Court that the Rule 39 measure, first applied on 13 August 2008, continued to remain in force. Nevertheless, the Government extradited the applicant to Algeria on 19 April.
The President is deeply disturbed at this development and is particularly concerned about its implications for the authority of the Court and the unfortunate message which it sends both to other Contracting States faced with a Rule 39 measure and to applicants and potential applicants liable to extradition or expulsion to countries where they may be exposed to the risk of violation of their rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. As an indication of the seriousness with which he views this turn of events, the President has asked that the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe be informed immediately.
The President also notes that notwithstanding the Court’s request of 22 April 2010 for clarification of the circumstances surrounding Mr Labsi’s extradition, your letter of 26 April failed to explain why the Rule 39 measure was not complied with. The President expects your authorities to provide an explanation. He would in particular request your authorities to confirm or deny reports that the spokesperson of the Ministry of the Interior declared that his authorities were prepared to run the risk of being found to be in breach of the Convention and that other States which had failed to comply with a Rule 39 measure only had to pay ‘a few thousand euros’”. 57.  In a reply dated 10 May 2010 the Vice-Prime Minister holding the post of the Minister of the Interior stated that all the relevant facts and legal issues had been taken into account prior to the applicant’s expulsion to Algeria, which had been carried out in accordance with the police decision of 20 July 2006. 58.  The letter indicated, inter alia, that the offences of which the applicant had been convicted in absentia did not carry a capital penalty. The Algerian authorities had confirmed that the applicant would receive a new trial in which his defence rights would be respected and that all forms of violence against individuals were punishable under Algerian law. 59.  The applicant had been convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment in France; he had also been banned from the territory of that State. Information about the applicant, including his involvement in the activities of terrorist groups and the fact that an international arrest warrant had been issued by Algerian authorities, was entered in the Schengen information system. The Slovakian police’s decision to expel the applicant was also based on the obligation resulting from Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001, which requires the police in Slovakia to ensure the enforcement of an expulsion decision issued in one of the States within the European Economic Area where a foreigner was sentenced to a prison term of at least one year. 60.  On the basis of all the information available the Slovakian police had concluded that the applicant represented a real risk to the security of the Slovak Republic and to society. The Supreme Court, in its decision concerning the applicant’s third request for asylum, had reached the same conclusion. 61.  The Ministry of the Interior believed that the need to protect society from a person who had been convicted of involvement in a terrorist group prevailed in the present case and that the applicant’s expulsion had not been contrary to Slovakia’s undertakings under the Convention. The statements which the spokesperson of the Ministry of the Interior had made about the applicant’s case and the Court’s practice were to be interpreted in that context. 62.  At the time of lodging the application the applicant was represented by Ms M. Kolíková, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. In a letter of 9 July 2010 Ms Kolíková informed the Court that her right to practice as an advocate had been suspended as of that date following her appointment as Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice. The letter further stated that Mr M. Hrbáň, a lawyer practising in Bratislava, was prepared to take over the applicant’s representation before the Court. It was impossible to contact the applicant for practical reasons, but the necessary steps would be taken with a view to ensuring his proper representation. 63.  On 30 July 2010 Mr M. Hrbáň confirmed that, upon agreement with Ms Kolíková, he undertook to protect the applicant’s rights and to submit a power of attorney from the applicant as soon as he could obtain one. 64.  On 31 March 2011 and 5 September 2011 Mr Hrbáň informed the Court that he had sent three letters to the applicant in El Harrach prison in Algeria to which he had received no reply. The Ministry of the Interior of the Slovak Republic had refused to inform Mr Hrbáň of the applicant’s address on the ground that he had not produced a power of attorney to represent the applicant. Efforts were being made, in co-operation with Amnesty International, to obtain more information about the applicant’s whereabouts. 65.  Mr Hrbáň stated, with reference to section 17 of the Bar Act 2003, that Ms Kolíková had appointed him as her substitute on the basis of their mutual agreement. The client’s consent and submission of a new power of attorney were not required in such circumstances. 66.  In a letter of 11 April 2011 Mr Hrbáň submitted information about the applicant’s fresh trial and conviction in Algeria which he had obtained from representatives of Amnesty International, one of whom had talked to the applicant’s brother. That information corresponds to that which the Algerian Ministry of Justice had furnished to the respondent Government (see paragraph 45 above). 67.  On 5 September 2011 Mr Hrbáň informed the Court that he had been unable to establish contact with the applicant. He maintained that he acted in good faith with a view to defending the applicant’s interests and that he had not modified the subject-matter of the application as submitted by the representative whom the applicant had appointed. He would continue in his efforts to contact the applicant in Algeria and asked the Court to consider his submissions as an amicus curiae intervention.