Tokens: At
the
time
of
the
Chamber
judgment
some
formations
of
the
Aliens
Appeals
Board
had
already
shown
reluctance
to
apply
strictly
the
criterion
established
in
N.
v.
the
United
Kingdom
(
see
paragraph
102
of
the
present
judgment
)
.
Since
then
,
the
Conseil
d’État
has
endorsed
their
approach
(
see
paragraphs
103
-
05
of
the
present
judgment
)
and
the
Aliens
Appeals
Board
has
consolidated
this
line
of
case
-
law
in
a
number
of
judgments
given
by
the
full
Board
.
Admittedly
,
this
case
-
law
relates
to
the
interpretation
of
a
rule
of
domestic
law
(
section
9
ter
of
the
Aliens
Act
,
concerning
the
possibility
of
granting
a
residence
permit
on
medical
grounds
)
,
but
it
is
also
relevant
to
the
interpretation
of
Article
3
of
the
Convention
.
It
emerges
from
the
judgments
of
the
full
Aliens
Appeals
Board
that
an
obstacle
to
the
removal
of
an
alien
who
is
ill
may
arise
not
only
where
there
is
an
imminent
threat
to
his
or
her
life
or
physical
integrity
(
a
situation
in
which
removal
would
be
contrary
to
Article
3
of
the
Convention
according
to
the
Court
’s
case
-
law
since
N.
v.
the
United
Kingdom
)
,
but
also
where
there
is
a
risk
of
inhuman
or
degrading
treatment
if
no
appropriate
treatment
exists
in
the
receiving
country
(
see
paragraphs
106
-
07
of
the
present
judgment
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O