Alzery v Sweden, Merits, Communication No /, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/ /, () 14 IHRR , IHRL (UNHRC ), 25th October . Jurisprudence. CCPR – Alzery v. Sweden. Date: 25 October Articles: 2, 7, Comm Number: / Outcome: Violation. | View as PDF | Download. The government of Sweden expelled al-Zari and Agiza, both suspected of terrorist activities, following written UN Human Rights Committee, Decision: Alzery v.

Author: Mazubei Arakus
Country: Denmark
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 11 August 2007
Pages: 476
PDF File Size: 8.82 Mb
ePub File Size: 11.78 Mb
ISBN: 384-8-89450-593-2
Downloads: 75196
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dourg

Navigation menu

The decision to keep him in detention was always upheld, the prosecutor relying on emergency laws but without formally charging the author. They were also informed, and accepted, that the CIA agents a,zery be masked and hooded. Alzery’s release militated against the possibility of accurately demonstrating Mr.

In his case, he sweddn that the evidence as to subsequent treatment was strongly probative of the initial existence of a real risk of torture. Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, however, there are allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations.

He immediately sought asylum in his own name and admitted to having used a false passport in order to be able to enter the country. In the circumstances and in light of the Committee’s previous practice with respect to passage of time, the Committee was not persuaded that the lapse of time was sufficiently egregious or otherwise defined by extraordinary circumstances such as the intervening election in Gobin v Mauritius 17 to amount to an abuse of process.

The author points out that on 14 December his then Swedish counsel had advised the Government of his intention to pursue international remedies in the event of an adverse decision. The result would be that no review of the case by an alaery human rights body would be possible.

Swedish police are explicitly held responsible for enforcement when assisted by a foreign authority, while security checks carried out on Swedish territory must be carried out by Swedish police.

The torture was monitored by doctors who also put ointment on the skin after torture in order not to leave any scars. The proceedings took 20 minutes. Alzery might only have recently become aware that a communication had been filed in his name. The Committee emphasizes that there was alzzery possibility for review of any kind of this decision. The purpose was to determine whether it would be possible, without violating Sweden’s international obligations, including under the Covenant, to order the author’s return to Egypt.

The primary ground was the obvious and well known risk of torture to which Alzery was exposed.

University of Minnesota Human Rights Library

It concluded that in any event the assurances alzerj not have been accepted. This article has multiple issues. While wlzery information can be revealed to the asylum seeker and his attorney, under strict non-disclosure orders, the grounds for the assessment are often only described in generalities and are not revealed to such an extent that they can be met or challenged by the individual. The author adopts the view of the Parliamentary Ombudsman that the treatment already suffered on Swedish soil could have been anticipated because of the then global situation.


In the author’s view, the State party lacked both the competence and desire to appropriately monitor the author’s situation, despite the concerns expressed from a variety of national and international quarters. The two men were arrested on the street, in one case, and in a telephone booth while talking with his lawyer, in the other, and they were driven to the airport within a few hours, and given over to a group of American and Egyptian personnel who flew them out of the country within minutes.

As to the claim submitted to the European Court, the author argues, not least given the general importance of the case, that the procedural delays by his lawyer and the inadmissibility decision by the European Court should not be a reason for the Human Rights Committee to reject the case.

Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery – The Rendition Project

The Swedish authorities, while expressing their disappointment, were unable to further act. Counsel rejected that Mr. These guidelines set out that given the severe consequences of exclusion for an individual and its exceptional nature, it is essential that rigorous procedural safeguards in relation to this issue are built into the refugee status determination procedure.

The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers. An effective remedy before a national authority should be provided for any asylum seeker, whose request for refugee status is rejected and who is subject to expulsion to a country about which that person presents an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

He however believed that he would be arrested and tortured if returned to Egypt because of these wrongful accusations. Both men had, separately, been accused by the Egyptian regime of membership in violent Islamist organisations, and were subjected to repeated harassment and arrest by the Egyptian security forces. The author submitted in support of his claim for asylum that he had been physically assaulted and tortured in Egypt; that he had felt that he was being watched and his home had been searched; that after his departure from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and then Syria he had been sought at his parents’ home; that he feared being brought before a military court if returned to Egypt on charges of being member of an illegal organisation; and that he was afraid that he would be arrested and tortured.


He is represented by counsel see, however, paras. Alzery and to appoint any person whom he wished to represent Mr.

But wlzery few victims could convince the authorities to institute criminal proceedings against their torturers: Under this system, the Supreme Migration Court, on oral hearing, may determine the existence of an impediment to enforcement of the expulsion decision, such as a risk of torture, which would be binding on the Government. He observes that the existence of such a real risk is made out at the time of expulsion, and does not require proof of actual torture having subsequently occurred although information as to subsequent events is relevant to the assessment of initial risk.

El-Zery had submitted a complaint against Sweden for alleged violations of articles 2, 7, 13 and 14 of the Covenant, and article 1 of the Optional Protocol. To date, the State party has received contradictory information about these wishes.

Both men allege that they were tortured while in detention in Egypt in the swdden. Moreover, as no charge was laid which could attract the application of article 14, the claim was inadmissible ratione materiae. They did not provide for legal counsel to be appointed immediately upon return, for counsel to be present during interrogations, for sufficiently frequent private and unmonitored independent meetings or for access to independent medical examinations.

When counsel’s call with the author was cut off on 18 Decemberthe former was advised upon contacting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that no decision had been taken.

He feared he would suffer similar fate. In addition, the State party refers to the findings of its Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution and its efforts to develop an instrument within the Council of Europe on appropriate use of diplomatic assurances.

Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden

Alzery’s intent without risk to him, particularly with reference to events transpiring when Swedish counsel visited see para 3. Before being released, he states he was forced to sign an agreement forswearing future involvement in the organization, failing which the next arrest would be “forever”.

The Foreign office sent certified letters to the lawyers, but these arrived two days after the men were in Egyptian custody. They acted with remarkable deference to the American officials. It is thus misleading to speak of prompt investigations.

In the hearing before the Committee on the Constitution, the Swedish State Secretary expressly stated that Sweden, after the expulsion, could not interfere in what Sweden believed was the internal concern of a state as the author was an Egyptian national, detained in Egypt. Released, 27 October