AUAD v. BULGARIA JUDGMENT 47 thus require action to be taken by any State authority, including the legislature (see, by way of example, Viaşu v. Romania, no. 75951/01, §§ 75-83, 9 December 2008). 138. In the present case, in view of the grave and irreversible nature of the consequences of the removal of aliens to countries where they may face ill-treatment, and the apparent lack of sufficient safeguards in Bulgarian law in that respect, it appears necessary to assist the Government in the execution of their duty under Article 46 § 1 of the Convention. 139. Having regard to its findings under Articles 3, 5 § 1 and 13 of the Convention, the Court is of the view that the general measures in execution of this judgment should include such amendments to the Aliens Act 1998 or other Bulgarian legislation, and such change of administrative and judicial practice in Bulgaria so as to ensure that: (a) there exists a mechanism requiring the competent authorities to consider rigorously, whenever there is an arguable claim in that regard, the risks likely to be faced by an alien as a result of his or her expulsion on national security grounds, by reason of the general situation in the destination country and his or her particular circumstances; (b) the destination country should always be indicated in a legally binding act and a change of destination should be amenable to legal challenge; (c) the above-mentioned mechanism should allow for consideration of the question whether, if sent to a third country, the person concerned may face a risk of being sent from that country to the country of origin without due consideration of the risk of ill-treatment; (d) where an arguable claim about a substantial risk of death or ill-treatment in the destination country is made in a legal challenge against expulsion, that legal challenge should have automatic suspensive effect pending the outcome of the examination of the claim; and (e) claims about serious risk of death or ill-treatment in the destination country should be examined rigorously by the courts. VI. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 140. Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage 141. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. He submitted that his impending