CAT/C/63/D/719/2015 effective relief to an alien who may run the risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment upon expulsion. 8.2 The State party further notes that the Division’s case law shows that the Minister for Immigration, Integration and Asylum has an obligation to inform an alien adequately and in a timely manner of an intention to carry out the alien’s expulsion, in order to provide for an effective legal remedy. 23 This implies that, if the Minister knows that an alien is being assisted by an authorized representative, the Minister must inform that representative, on the basis of article 2:1 of the General Administrative Law Act, of such intention, including the date and time of the expulsion, and must do so in a timely manner so that the authorized representative has sufficient opportunity to apply for a provisional measure if desired. In such case, the Division’s President has sufficient opportunity to assess the application with due care. In case ECLI:NL:RVS:2012:BW0628, the Division ruled that, since the Minister had failed to inform the alien of his intention to carry out the alien’s expulsion and had proceeded with the expulsion, he had denied the alien the opportunity to avail himself of an effective legal remedy. This prompted the Division’s President to issue a provisional measure ordering the alien to be returned to the Netherlands within 72 hours. Thus, there is a comprehensive system in place that in effect guarantees that, while an appeal is pending before the Division, an application for a provisional measure will have automatic suspensive effect until a decision has been made on that application. In the light of the above, the State party holds the view that the communication is inadmissible. 8.3 The State party notes that the complainants have not satisfactorily demonstrated that the Armenian authorities or Mr. Abrahamyan have, or indeed, have ever had, any personal interest in them. The parts of the complainants’ accounts that are considered to be credible are insufficient to warrant the conclusion that they would face a real risk of torture upon return to Armenia. Even if their accounts were deemed credible in their entirety, the State party holds that the complainants would no longer be the object of adverse attention from the Armenian authorities, or from Mr. Abrahamyan and his supporters, upon their return. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 9.1 In his submission of 4 May 2018, the counsel for the complainants submitted additional comments on the State party’s submission on admissibility and the merits of the complaint. With regard to admissibility of the complaint, the counsel once again makes reference to the European Court of Human Rights case of Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands and notes that, besides the lack of automatic suspensive effect of the appeal to the Division, the strict procedural obstacles applicable in subsequent asylum applications render the appeal to the Division ineffective, having “virtually no prospect of success”. The procedural obstacles are related to: (a) the consistent refusal of the Division to consider reports from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights and Medical; and (b) the refusal of the Division to refer preliminary questions concerning the so-called culpability requirement in subsequent applications for international protection to the Court of Justice of the European Union. 9.2 With regard to the provisional measures, the counsel notes that, prior to the 20 December 2016 judgment of the Council of State, the State party did not, or at least not often, issue provisional measures in cases where there was potentially an arguable claim barred by the procedural constraints of a subsequent asylum procedure. Since the complainants’ application was filed in 2015, it was unlikely that provisional measures would have been granted. 9.3 With regard to the assessment of the complainants’ accounts in support of their asylum application, the counsel reiterates that the State party has failed to duly investigate the false visa applications on behalf of the complainants. He further notes that stress, trauma and pregnancy provide a reasonable explanation for why the complainants, who only spoke Armenian, could not read signs written in Cyrillic script in Georgia, and thus could not answer questions about their travel route. 23 10 See ECLI: NL: RVS: 2012: BW0628 (in Dutch).