AUAD v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 41 claim that there existed a tacit or an express refusal to stay the enforcement of the order for his expulsion by reference to section 44a. 116. The applicant submitted that section 44a did not have direct application. He had raised the issue of risk in the proceedings for judicial review of the expulsion order, which was the only available legal avenue where such issues could be addressed. However, the Supreme Administrative Court had said that the issue was irrelevant. B. The Court’s assessment 117. The Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 118. On the merits, the Court must start by examining which of the applicant’s substantive complaints in relation to his expulsion were arguable, because the scope of the obligation under Article 13 varies depending on the nature of the applicant’s complaint (see, as a recent authority, A. v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 157). 119. Article 8 not being applicable (see paragraphs 111 and 112 above), the applicant’s claim under Article 13 in conjunction with Article 8 is not arguable. It is, then, not necessary to establish whether the Supreme Administrative Court subjected the allegation that the applicant represented a national security risk to a genuine examination or whether it gave consideration to the question whether the expulsion amounted to a disproportionate interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private or family life (see, mutatis mutandis, A. v. the Netherlands, cited above, § 160, and contrast C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria, §§ 60-64, and Raza, § 63, both cited above). 120. By contrast, the Court’s findings in paragraphs 101-103 above show that the applicant’s claim under Article 3 was arguable. He was therefore entitled to an effective remedy in that respect. The notion of an effective remedy in such circumstances has two components. Firstly, it imperatively requires close, independent and rigorous scrutiny of the claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 (see M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 293, with further references). That scrutiny must be carried out without regard to what the person may have done to warrant expulsion or to any perceived threat to the national security of the expelling State (see Chahal, cited above, 151 in fine). The second requirement is that the person concerned should have access to a remedy with automatic suspensive effect (see Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 81-83, ECHR 2002-I, and Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, § 66 in fine, ECHR 2007-II; Muminov v. Russia, no. 42502/06, § 101, 11 December 2008; Abdolkhani