42 AUAD v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT and Karimnia, cited above, § 108; and M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, cited above, § 293 in fine). 121. Concerning the “scrutiny” requirement, the Court observes that when examining the applicant’s legal challenge against the order for his expulsion, the Supreme Administrative Court expressly refused to deal with the question of risk, saying that any threat to the applicant in Lebanon was irrelevant for determining the lawfulness of his expulsion (compare with Jabari, cited above, § 49). As for the “suspensive effect” requirement, it should be noted that under Bulgarian law applications for judicial review of expulsion orders issued on national security grounds do not have automatic suspensive effect (see paragraph 35 above). It furthermore appears that the courts have no power to suspend the enforcement of such orders, even if an irreversible risk of death or ill-treatment in the receiving State is claimed (see paragraphs 31, 34 and 37 above). The proceedings for judicial review of the expulsion order against the applicant cannot therefore be regarded as an effective remedy in respect of his grievance under Article 3. 122. The Government’s case was that the issue of risk would be examined upon the enforcement of the expulsion order against the applicant and that the authorities would not remove him from Bulgaria without ensuring that this would not fall foul of the prohibition set out in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 (see paragraph 38 above). However, the Court has already found that there are no guarantees that before proceeding with the expulsion the authorities would subject the applicant’s claims under Article 3 of the Convention to rigorous scrutiny (see paragraphs 105 and 106 above). More importantly, the Government did not point to any procedure whereby the applicant would be able to challenge their assessment of those claims. From the provisions of the Aliens Act 1998 and the regulations for its application it does not appear that it is possible to bring a separate legal challenge against the enforcement of the expulsion order, let alone that there exists an avenue of redress that meets the two requirements set out in paragraph 120 above. The Court would emphasise in that connection that the existence of remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, and that it falls to the respondent State to establish that (see, among other authorities, McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 107, ECHR 2010-...). 123. In the light of the above, the Court concludes that the applicant does not have an effective remedy in relation to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. There has therefore been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.