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):||9 January 2013|
|PDF File Size:||17.5 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.55 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
There were serious security issues to consider, as an international complaint implicating Egypt could expose Mr. Reporter Swdden Franchellfriend of the deceased foreign minister Anna Seedenwitness 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 participation of other politicians who allegedly later conveniently shoved the responsibility over to the deceased Lindh.
In fact, after testifying in court regarding his torture, Agiza was approached by an officer of the Egyptian security forces and warned not to mention it again. When his clothes were cut off his body, he was handcuffed and chained to his feet. The torture was monitored by doctors who also put ointment on the skin after torture in order not to leave any scars. Evidence, including confessions, procured under duress, threats and torture is permitted, while individuals detained under emergency laws who do not receive a trial are only released after having confessed or given the requested information, often of names of other individuals, who are in turn arrested and interrogated.
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. Moreover, as no charge was laid which could attract the application of article 14, the claim was inadmissible ratione materiae. 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.
There were no senior Swedish officers present at Bromma airport, and those who were assigned to carry out the expulsion, relinquished authority and control to the foreign agents involved.
The Ambassadorial visit was then agreed with the prison commandant in advance when the visits should take place. The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers. The reasons adduced for the decision were that there was no ground for assuming that a criminal offence under public prosecution had been committed by a member of the Swedish police in swedsn with the enforcement.
The members of the team did not speak to each other but communicated using hand signals. He claims to be victim of violations by Sweden of articles 2; 7; 13 and 14 of the Covenant, and of article 1 of the First Optional Allzery. The author argues that it was thus clear that the Security Police both knew that the decision to expel was going to be taken that day and were ready to act as soon as it was taken.
Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
The Government noted the content of the guarantees that had been issued by a senior representative of the Egyptian government. Archived from the original on Although represented by a lawyer at the time, the latter did not react to his statement, which left the author to speak on his own behalf at subsequent hearings. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met.
Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery
Byboth had made their way to Sweden, and made formal applications for asylum, based on the fact that they would be detained, tortured and even executed if returned to Egypt Agiza had been tried in absentia for terrorist activity, found guilty, and given a 25 year sentence. 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 was repeatedly tortured, including through electric shocks, death threats, and threats of sexual abuse against his female relatives. 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 ….
Just before 10 p.
Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery – The Rendition Project
No corresponding documentation existed within the Government Offices. Researching the globalisation of rendition and secret detention. He immediately sought asylum in alzefy own name and admitted to having used a false passport in order to be able to enter the country.
The Migration Board referred sween asylum claim to the Government after the Security Police made the assessment that he was considered to constitute a security risk. The State party also rejects that what transpired amounted to torture as defined by article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
Counsel argued that such conduct put Mr. Diplomacy cannot effectively protect against illegal ill treatment of an individual. He obtained a false Danish passport and departed for Sweden where he arrived in 4 August In any event, the lack of due diligence in investigating the case and reliance on international intelligence for justification of the expulsion failed to meet even the basic level of due process afforded by article The answer was a hope that I would come back soon, along with the comment that “it’s hard being in prison.
Since matters dealt with under this procedure are classified, the information on which the decision is based the evaluation by the Security Police is normally withheld from the asylum seeker, counsel and the general public. March Learn how and when to remove this template message.