The European Regional System 2 the facts in the case from the “exceptional circumstances” in D v UK. Amegnigan v the Netherlands concerned a Togolese national suffering from AIDS, who argued that an expulsion to his home country would expose him to a real risk of a painful death. The Court considered that the expulsion would not violate the Convention, as the applicant’s illness was not at a terminal stage, retroviral drugs were available in Togo, and the applicant had family in Togo who were likely to help him. The issue will soon be examined by a Grand Chamber of the Court in N v UK, which concerns expulsion of an HIV-positive woman to Uganda.428 However, the current case law indicates that expulsion of an individual suffering from a serious illness to his or her home country will amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention only if the illness is at a terminal stage, and suitable treatment is unavailable in the country to which he or she is being expelled. Traditionally, the Court and Commission confined themselves to considering allegations of risks emanating from State authorities. More recently, however, the Court has confirmed that the absolute nature of the prohibition and the duty to protect individuals can engage a State’s responsibility even where the risk in a receiving country emanates from sources other than State authorities. One of the most significant cases to examine this issue was H.L.R v France.429 In this instance, H.L.R, was a Colombian national who had been imprisoned for a drug offence and was the subject of a deportation order from France back to Colombia. H.L.R claimed that if he were deported back to Colombia he would be exposed to acts of vengeance from the drug traffickers who had recruited him. Therefore, he claimed that, were it to proceed with the deportation, France would be in violation of Article 3. While the Court found no violation of Article 3 in this case, it nevertheless held that the source of the risk of ill-treatment could emanate from private actors and not the State authorities themselves, stating that “[o]wing to the absolute character of the right guaranteed, the Court does not rule out the possibility that Article 3 of the Convention may also apply where the danger emanates from persons or groups of persons who are not public officials.”430 N v UK, no. 26565/05, pending. H.L.R. v France (1997), op. cit. 430 Ibid. §40. See also the more recent case Salah Sheekh v the Netherlands, no. 1948/04, judgement of 11 January 2007. 428 429 88