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.
|Country:||Moldova, Republic of|
|Published (Last):||9 December 2006|
|PDF File Size:||8.31 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.4 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Analysis of flight data and associated documentation demonstrates that the rendition took place on board a CIA-owned Gulfstream V executive jet, with tail number NP. The Committee recalls that the Convention’s protections are absolute, even in the context of national security concerns, and that such considerations emphasize the importance of appropriate review mechanisms.
On 12 Novemberthe Migration Board, while of the view that the author could be considered in need of protection, referred the matter to the Government for a decision pursuant to the Aliens Act, given the security issues involved.
Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden
In accordance with Swedish law, these proceedings were undertaken promptly alzwry independently after complaints were filed, and thus there is no violation of article 7 in this respect. He was then drugged per rectum with some form of tranquilliser and placed in diapers. In Junethe then Sweddn Minister for Foreign Affairs wrote to the Egyptian authorities, suggesting that the investigation be carried out with or by an independent authority, involving the judiciary and medical expertise and preferably international expertise in the area of torture investigations.
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. The Committee noted that the decisions had been notified to the expellees through the enforcement authority, while counsels had been notified by registered letters.
In any event, she supplied a written declaration from Mr. The Egyptian compliance with the given guarantee leaves something to be desired. The government of Sweden expelled al-Zari swedej 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. The State party also rejects that what transpired amounted to torture as defined by article 1 of the Convention against Torture.
One example cited was the failure of the Security Police to ask for information about what the security check demanded by the Americans would involve. The behaviour shows the inherent deficiencies in diplomatic agreements regarding the protection of the human rights of the individual. But everything we have seen so far indicates that we can trust them.
The Government was also aware that Egypt had not accepted the individual complaint jurisdiction of any treaty body, or the invitation of any international monitoring bodies, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Such trials, routinely utilised since in terrorism-related cases, are sometimes held en masse and routinely fail to meet international fair trial standards even where the death penalty resulted. Applying such an approach, there can be little doubt that Mr.
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.
Having taken into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication, and the State party. Despite the reprisals, the author continued to attempt to convey swedeh as to the treatment suffered, as detailed in the Ambassador’s report following a second visit on 7 Xweden They had obtained a guarantee from Egypt that they would not be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment, that they would be given fair trials, and that the Swedish embassy personnel would be allowed to visit the men in prison.
The Egyptian Government dismissed the allegations but agreed to undertake an investigation. No corresponding documentation existed within the Government Offices. In Julythe Swedish government granted Agiza a permanent residence permit. Moreover, during a visit by Embassy staff in earlythe author made similar allegations. Counsel further argued that the onus of proof should be on the State party to demonstrate such a change in circumstances.
Alzery concerning the communication see para 4. Unsuccessful negotiations to this end prolonged the delay in filings to the European Court. The author refers to the concluding observations on related matters in Egypt by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture covering an extended period of years, 7 as well as critical reports from national human rights organisations and international sources.
It emphasised that the Security Police bore responsibility for how the enforcement came to be conducted.
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library
Retrieved from ” https: In hindsight, it appears that the Swedish mode of action was strongly influenced by the events xweden the attack on the New York twin towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, three months earlier.
Click here for full documents in this case, including exhibits supporting Wigenmark’s testimony.
Officer Y wlzery to speak to the occupants of the plane. Retrieved 20 June There is nothing in the agreements describing the right to visits in prison, or the regularity of such visits, nor how these visits were to take place or what would happen, what mechanisms would be put alzeery place, if there were any signs of a violation of the agreement. Alzery’s well being, in the light of the investigations concluding after the European Court’s decision of October The immediate execution of the deportation decision was also found to breach Sweden’s obligation to ensure the deportation could be reviewed by the Human Rights Committee, especially since Alzery’s lawyer had previously announced his determination to appeal any negative decision to the Committee.
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. In conclusion I asked whether there was anything else they wished to say to me.
It remained unclear whether current counsel for the author had been properly authorised by her client to bring his case before the Committee.