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):||4 September 2014|
|PDF File Size:||8.78 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.85 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
He remained blindfolded until 20 Februaryand then only had the blindfold removed during visits by the Swedish Ambassador. There was nothing to suggest torture or ill treatment. The national security issue is not adjudged by any court of law or other independent body before the Government’s decision. On three or four occasions inhe was called to hearings before a prosecutor for decision on his continued detention.
In the meantime, the lawyer who experienced the interrupted conversation called the Swedish foreign office to figure out what was going on, but could not find anyone who could tell. Moreover, during a visit by Embassy staff in earlythe author made similar allegations. Throughout, the security team did not speak at all, communicating instead with hand signals.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee found the deportation of Alzery sweeen breach of Sweden’s obligations under the international treaties that Sweden has entered into. 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. Both men, who had been under surveillance, were arrested separately and driven to Bromma airport, arriving around 8.
None of the visits in prison took place in private. In AprilAgiza was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for membership in an organisation banned under Egyptian law, in a trial that failed to comport with universally recognised fair trial standards.
The author argues that the Swedish Government sought to exclude him from refugee protection on the grounds of his alleged association with Islamist groups in Egypt, although the Government could not prove such a connection.
When his clothes swedej cut off his body, he was handcuffed and chained to his feet. This included both men being subjected to having their clothes cut to pieces, full cavity searches, the insertion of anal suppositories, being dressed in diapers and overalls, hooded, handcuffed and strapped to a mattress on the aircraft.
Jurisprudence – CCPR – Alzery v. Sweden
The Embassy visits aside, the author was only visited once by an attorney — in relation to his first appearance before a prosecutor.
Click here to read the account in full.
She also offered the assistance of Swedish expertise. In Julythe Egyptian authorities rejected the allegations of ill-treatment and referred to Egyptian investigations. Diplomacy cannot effectively protect against illegal ill treatment of an individual.
He had not provided any information regarding the treatment prior to the Embassy’s first prison visit. According to his then Swedish counsel, the blindfold remained on until 20 Februaryand was only removed for a few days in connection with visits by the Swedish Ambassador on 23 January and an interview with a Swedish journalist in February Click here for full documents in this case, including exhibits supporting Wigenmark’s testimony. Mohammed Alzery, an Egyptian national alzeery on 23 September In Decemberthe issue was discussed of a possible international inquiry under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden
Inhe felt forced b leave Syria since a number of Egyptian nationals had been extradited back to Egypt. However, the Swedish decision to rely on such promises has been strongly criticized. An envoy voiced Swedish concerns as to the alleged ill-treatment suffered in the early weeks following alzey and requesting an inquiry alzert international alzey expertise.
At the time there was a strong desire among European governments to show solidarity with the USA, and to appear like reliable partners in security issues. Inside the station, in a small changing room, the American officials conducted what they had referred to as a security check. On 17 Alaerythe Committee decided that the portion of the complaint that had been referred to it by the Stockholm district prosecutor required no action.
It concluded that in any event the assurances should not have been accepted. The prosecutor however promptly terminated the investigation. Nor were any arrangements made outside the text of the assurances themselves which would have provided for effective implementation. And as mentioned above, since both states risk being accused of having violated the absolute prohibition against torture, there is no incitement to reveal indications or information about ill-treatment.
The Swedish authorities, while expressing their disappointment, were unable to further act. 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.
Swfden from the original PDF on June 17, The author argues that it is thus unclear what real value the Government could in fact afford the assurances since they did not afford him any special, positive, treatment, as compared with other suspected terrorists.
The Egyptian Government dismissed the allegations but agreed to undertake an investigation. 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. As far as the complaint concerned Ministerial representatives of the Government, it was handed over to the Parliament’s Standing Committee on the Constitution, which has jurisdiction to lodge criminal charges, such as serious neglect of Ministerial duties, before the Swexen Court.
Nor, as a rule, does the affected individual have any right to present his case to the ministers or those government officials who take the decision, further curtailing his opportunities to submit any reasons against expulsion.
Alzery’s phone was tapped but that the Embassy had made the assertion that discussing these matters over the phone was without risk for Mr. In light of circumstances, counsel’s willingness and ability to contact him was also substantially restricted. The interpreter says that he was present for the entire time but that when E. The deportation only became widely known to the general public after the Swedish television network TV4 in its series Kalla fakta Cold Facts in May reported on the deportation under the heading “The broken promise”, by the journalists, Sven BergmanFredrik Laurinand Joachim Dyfvermark.
Before the Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution, it was suggested that the author held a leading position in a terrorist organisation in Egypt and was involved in serious crimes. The State party swrden no apparent reason why the Committee was not approached as soon alzzery possible sweven the European Court’s decision — the facts of his case had already been presented to the Court and the legal arguments made before the Court could also have been swedfn before the Committee.
Archived from the original on The author argues that his release without charge, despite interrogation and torture upon his return to Egypt, confirms his innocence of the terrorist association claimed. Deciding not to prolong detention, the then Immigration Board decided that although there was uncertainty as swedeh the author’s identity and he had utilised a false passport which created swedej risk of absconding, his placement under surveillance would suffice in lieu of detention.