38 AUAD v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT sought by the Lebanese authorities in connection with a number of assassinations (see paragraphs 14, 22, 23 and 87 above) show, if anything, that he may be at even greater risk of ill-treatment, by the Lebanese authorities themselves. There are a number of reports indicating that those authorities are likely to ill-treat persons suspected of involvement with such groups (see paragraphs 61, 64, 74 and 75 and above). There is no indication that the Government have sought or obtained any form of assurance on the part of Lebanon in relation to such matters. In any event, the existence of assurances does not absolve a Contracting State from its obligation to consider their practical application (see, among other authorities, Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.), nos. 24027/07, 11949/08 and 36742/08, § 106, 6 July 2010). 105. In their observations, the Government referred to the prohibition in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 38 above). They explained that the practice in such cases was for the authorities to verify the matter when executing the expulsion order, and that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs kept an updated list of safe third countries that could receive individuals in the applicant’s position. However, the Court does not consider that the Government’s statement can be regarded as a binding assurance that the applicant will not be expelled to Lebanon, for two reasons. First, in contrast to the express assurances given by the French Government in Boutagni (cited above, §§ 20 and 42), in the present case the Government did not declare that the applicant would not be removed to Lebanon, but merely said that the point would be examined at the time of the execution of the expulsion order. Secondly, the Government’s statement is not based on, or reflected in, a binding legal act (contrast Boutagni, cited above, §§ 19-20 and 47-48), and it is unclear whether it can of itself bind the authorities responsible for executing the expulsion order (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others, cited above, §§ 344-45). 106. The Court’s main concern is whether effective guarantees exist that protect the applicant against arbitrary refoulement, be it direct or indirect, to the country from which he has fled (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no. 30696/09, § 286, 21 January 2011). It is not persuaded that, if and when they proceed with the applicant’s expulsion, the Bulgarian authorities will examine with the necessary rigour whether his return to Lebanon would put him at risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 (contrast M.H. v. Sweden (dec.), no. 10641/08, §§ 25 and 41, 21 October 2008). The Government did not provide any particulars about the manner in which the immigration authorities apply section 44a when implementing expulsion orders, and did not give any concrete examples. The Aliens Act 1998 and the regulations for its application are silent on this point, and there are no reported cases (see paragraph 38 in fine above). It is thus unclear by reference to what standards and on the basis of what information the authorities will make a determination, if any, of the risk faced by the applicant if removed to