Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―The Hague Conference on Science and Public Policy‖ (May 8-10, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – The Hague, Netherlands, 2026. - 232 p.

159 In the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECtHR or the Court), this provision has been interpreted as prohibiting the expulsion, return, or extradition of a person to a State where there exists a real risk of treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the ECHR [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. The ECtHR has developed a consistent approach according to which the expulsion of an individual may constitute a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of prohibited treatment in the receiving State. Such an approach was first clearly articulated in the case of Soering v . the United Kingdom, where the ECtHR held that the extradition of the applicant to the United States, in view of the risk of prolonged detention under the ―death row phenomenon‖, could give rise to a violation of Article 3 of the ECHR. The Court stated that permitting such removal in circumstances exposing an individual to a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment would be inconsistent with the spirit and underlying purpose of Article 3 [5]. This judgment laid the foundation for an expanded interpretation of the principle of non-refoulement in the practice of the ECtHR and became the starting point for its further development. In the case of Cruz Varas and Others v . Sweden, the applicants – Chilean nationals – challenged Sweden‘s decision to expel them, arguing that, if returned to their country of origin, they would face a risk of persecution and ill-treatment. Examining the complaint through the prism of Article 3 of the ECHR, the ECtHR considered whether forced return in such circumstances could amount to a violation of the Convention. In this judgment, the Court emphasized that the responsibility of a Contracting State may arise already at the stage of adopting and enforcing an expulsion decision where such removal creates a real risk of prohibited treatment in the receiving State. At the same time, the Court clearly established that the principle of non-refoulement has a general scope of application and extends not only to extradition, but also to other forms of forced removal, including deportation and de facto expulsion, thereby broadening its application in the practice of the ECtHR [6].