32 AUAD v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT be regarded as established. However, he could not benefit from such protection, as he fell within the exclusion clauses of sections 4(4) and 67(3) of the Asylum and Refugees Act of 2002. B. The Court’s assessment 1. Admissibility 92. Since the Government appear to contest that the applicant is at risk of being expelled to a country where he may face treatment contrary to Article 3, the Court must first examine his victim status. It notes, firstly, that the order for his expulsion, having been upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court, is final and enforceable (see, mutatis mutandis, Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, § 358, ECHR 2005-III; Abdulazhon Isakov v. Russia, no. 14049/08, § 100, 8 July 2010; Karimov v. Russia, no. 54219/08, § 90, 29 July 2010; and Kolesnik v. Russia, no. 26876/08, § 63, 17 June 2010, and contrast Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 27 August 1992, § 46, Series A no. 241-B; Pellumbi v. France (dec.), no. 65730/01, 18 January 2005; Djemailji v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 13531/03, 18 January 2005; Etanji v. France (dec.), no. 60411/00, 1 March 2005; Shamayev and Others, cited above, §§ 354-55, ECHR 2005-III; and Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, § 60, 11 October 2007). Secondly, although issued more than a year and a half ago, it continues to have full legal effect (contrast Benamar and Others v. France (dec.), no. 42216/98, 14 November 2000). Lastly, there is no indication that the authorities have suspended its enforcement (contrast Andrić v. Sweden (dec.), no. 45917/99, 23 February 1999), or that it is possible to challenge its enforcement (contrast Kalantari v. Germany (striking out), no. 51342/99, § 56, ECHR 2001-X; and Yildiz v. Germany (dec.), no. 40932/02, 13 October 2005). The question whether the bar in section 44a of the Aliens Act 1998 on the expulsion of aliens to countries where their life or freedom would be in danger or where they may face a risk of ill-treatment (see paragraph 38 above) would in fact prevent the applicant’s removal to Lebanon goes to the merits of the case (see Boutagni v. France, no. 42360/08, §§ 47-48, 18 November 2010). Nor is it apparent, from the information available in the case file, that the Lebanese authorities will never issue travel documents enabling the applicant to re-enter Lebanon. 93. In those circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. 94. The Court further considers that the 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.