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.
|Published (Last):||26 October 2006|
|PDF File Size:||10.84 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.72 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Instead, he was told that no decision had been reached. He obtained a false Danish passport and departed for Sweden where he arrived in 4 August He was forced to confess to crimes he had not committed, and was questioned about activities such as arranging meetings for the forbidden organization he was active for and opposing “the system”.
The Ombudsman does not give reasons for this decision but the State party suggests that the reasons seem related to the fact that there was no senior official of the Security Police who had been assigned command of the Bromma operation, alzefy the officials present had relatively subordinate ranks and that none of them felt that they bore the ultimate responsibility for the operation and that they might have felt under pressure given the urgency accorded by the Cabinet to prompt execution the day the decision had been taken.
He was not provided with hearing records. The Government was also swrden that the Egyptian President had declared, and continually renewed, a state of emergency dating fromand that numerous laws protecting human rights were set aside, inter alia permitting trial of civilians by military tribunal.
In MayAhmed Agiza was included as one of three plaintiffs later joined by two morein a case filed against Jeppesen Dataplan alleging complicity in their rendition and torture.
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. After meeting with the author subsequent to his release, then counsel sought to procure permission of the author to return to Sweden, given that no charges were filed, as there would be little possibility for him of an ordinary life in Egypt.
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. While selected 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 Parliamentary Ombudsman examined the handling of the case after the decision had been made, and criticised harshly various aspects of the degrading treatment of the subjects at the airport.
Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery – The Rendition Project
Such relinquishment of public authority was unlawful. He states that for allzery further five weeks he was interrogated and this time harshly ill-treated, including electric shocks applied to genitals, nipples and ears.
In addition, counsel sought to exhaust alternatives to a national or international complaint that would not be as intrusive or dangerous for Mr. All laws in force, including state security laws, were thus fully applicable to Mr.
He was then dressed in overalls and escorted to the plane blindfolded, hooded and barefooted. The author specifically asked for a private meeting in order to present his case to the Government, but this request was rejected. When he looked back, E. 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 akzery 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.
During the interview, he stated that he had never been involved swedeb the movement he was accused of being involved in, and that he strongly rejected any violence as a mean to reach any political goal. Rather, it sought to give effect to the de facto authority which the complainant sought to confer on counsel.
Cases Involving Diplomatic Assurances against Torture: Developments since May Sweden
March Learn how and when to remove this template message. 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 suggests this resulted from previous experiences where Egypt had resisted attempts of other States seeking to procure assurances of a civilian court trial. While the security checks were taking place, Y himself was standing some distance away and could not see what was happening.
Alzery’s release militated against the possibility of accurately demonstrating Mr. Later investigations by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman, disclosed that the hooded individuals were United States’ and Egyptian security agents.
Alzery, the interpreter was not translating their conversation into Swedish, which Mr.
There was only room for a very few people in the changing room. Although in the light of the circumstances and the author’s contentions as to his past conduct, his fear of persecution was considered to be well founded, entitling him protection in Sweden, the Government considered that he could be excluded from refugee status.
He feared he would suffer similar fate. Taking these facts together, and relying on the decision in Agiza v Sweden that equivalent events constituted a breach of the right to exercise effective complaint under article 22 of the Convention against Torture or Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment “the Convention against Torture”the author argues that a parallel violation of article 1 of the Optional Protocol is disclosed.
Xweden intent without risk to him, particularly with reference to events transpiring when Swedish counsel visited see para 3.
The Government has not received any information which would cast doubt at this conclusion.