ALZERY V SWEDEN PDF
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):||28 November 2015|
|PDF File Size:||3.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.42 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The existence of diplomatic assurances, their content and the existence and implementation of enforcement mechanisms are all factual elements relevant to the overall determination of whether, in fact, a real risk of proscribed ill-treatment exists.
Alzery advised that the person who called him was the interpreter employed by the Embassy. In the State party’s view, the delay between the expulsion on 18 December and submission of the communication on 29 July was excessive and without acceptable justification. An inquiry was therefore not instigated.
It should also be read in conjunction with the established principles regarding procedural right for the individual asylum-seeker deriving from the Convention on the Status of Refugees and its Protocols. While sween Swedish Government had since indicated that there had been discussions about the right to visit the author in prison, this remained unconfirmed. Alzeyr 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.
Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners.
If such treatment occurred, primary responsibility lay with the Egyptian authorities and represented a breach of their bilateral undertakings. Agiza, however, was not released until 2 August The author notes in this regard that the assurance is of no legal value in Egypt and cannot be enforced or utilised as a legal document by him. In the same facsimile message, the lawyer provided an affidavit to the effect that the author was one of the accused in proceedings concerning membership in a forbidden organization likely to be handled by a military tribunal.
On 26 Septemberthe Ambassador informed counsel by fax that as the author was alxery, he did not have a right to sign the power of attorney.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the way in which the Security Police had dealt with the case was characterised throughout by passivity – from the acceptance of the offer of the use of an American aircraft until completion of the enforcement. Alzery’s intent without risk to him, particularly with reference to events transpiring when Swedish counsel visited see para azery.
There was thus no violation of article 13 of the Covenant. However, the shortcomings in the actual monitoring were, in the Committee’s opinion, mainly a consequence of the lack of planning in advance. But everything we have seen so far indicates that we can trust them. One of the Egyptian officials observed afterwards that [the other individual] was clearly trying to hint by means of his evasive formulations that he had in fact been maltreated, without coming out and saying so directly ….
Counsel disputed, moreover, that the Swedish Embassy had been in regular contact with Mr. It was questionable whether there was also a breach of article 3 of the European Convention. In a diplomatic report of 2 February from the Swedish Ambassador to his Ministry for Foreign Affairs, he informed: Alzery or his lawyer been informed of the use of diplomatic assurances before the expulsion, he would immediately have sought interim measures at the international level.
After a few hours in detention, he was transferred by vehicle to Bromma airport. Such relinquishment of public authority was unlawful. In addition, counsel sought to exhaust alternatives to a national or international complaint that would not be as intrusive or dangerous for Mr. In determining the risk of such treatment in the present case, the Committee must consider all relevant elements, including the general situation of human rights in a State.
At the time of expulsion and to this day, the author remains unaware as to why he was considered to constitute a security risk in Sweden. It had not been possible to establish with complete clarity whether the Foreign Minister was provided with the said information during the presentation, or whether the information was available at that time in other parts of the Government Offices.
Nor was any Swedish representative present at the hearings before the prosecutor regarding the author. Firstly, his expulsion breached article 7 on the basis that Sweden was or should have been aware that he faced a real risk of torture in the circumstances, notwithstanding the assurances procured. In accordance with Swedish law, these proceedings were undertaken promptly and independently after complaints were filed, and thus there is no violation of article 7 in this respect.
The district prosecutor referred the case to the Prosecutor-Director at the Stockholm Public Prosecution Authority for a decision on whether to initiate a preliminary investigation regarding events taking place on an aircraft registered abroad. The government of Sweden expelled al-Zari and Agiza, both suspected of terrorist activities, following written assurances from the Egyptian authorities that they would not be subject to the death penalty, tortured, or ill-treated, and would receive fair trials.
It emphasised that the Security Police bore responsibility for how the enforcement came to be conducted. On 8 Marchit therefore declared the communication admissible. In summary, nothing emerged to change my judgment from my first visit that [the author and the other individual] are doing reasonably well under the circumstances. According to the author, many co-accused had been in detention for years without trial, a number of them had been sentenced to death and executed and others had not been freed even after an acquittal in court.
The author acknowledges opposition to the government but disputes any contention he supported violence.
Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery – Wikipedia
Alzery’s former Swedish counsel granted him the aozery to act swwden all cases and instances on behalf of Mr. The State party, referring to its desire to ascertain what actually took place, however invokes the fruitless efforts at the highest levels to achieve an impartial, independent investigation with international expertise into the course of factual events in Egypt subject to the expulsion supra, at para 3.
Reporter Eva Franchellfriend of the deceased foreign minister Anna Lindhwitness to her murder, and at an earlier stage her press secretary, published a book about Lindh where she described the difficulties surrounding the repatriation decision, as well as the sweedn of other politicians who allegedly later conveniently shoved the responsibility over to the deceased Lindh.
The prerequisites for meaningful monitoring would have been better in place, if appropriate monitoring had been planned and agreed upon with the Egyptian authorities before the men were expelled. In fact, after testifying in court regarding his torture, Agiza was approached swrden an officer of the Egyptian security forces and warned not to mention it again.
In his case, he argues that the evidence as to subsequent treatment was strongly probative of the initial existence of a real risk of torture. The Committee noted that the decisions had been notified to the expellees through the enforcement authority, while counsels had been notified by registered letters.