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 June 2010|
|PDF File Size:||4.12 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.54 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
However, the dominant portion of the information concerning his alleged dangerousness was withheld from him and counsel.
In addition, counsel sought to exhaust alternatives to a national or international complaint that would not be as intrusive or dangerous for Mr. Visits were less frequent during the summer vacation months and Christmas when there were intervals of two months.
Retrieved 20 June The Government ordered the author’s immediate expulsion. Its report was published in Juneand concluded that the government violated its own laws in sending them to a country where there existed a substantial likelihood of torture. American Civil Liberties Union. Taking into account both the gravity of the alleged violations, as well as the importance for international review of the merits of such a case should the national investigations undertaken be shown, on the merits, to have been inadequate or ineffective, the Committee considered that the State party sween not discharged its burden of demonstrating that the power of attorney originally conferred no longer continued to saeden.
Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, however, there are allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations. 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 The blindfold and hood stayed on throughout the transfer including when he was handed over to Egyptian apzery security at Cairo airport some five hours later.
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library
Alzery had, through his then lawyer, made clear to the Swedish Government that if a decision to expel were to be taken he would turn to an international body such as the European Court. The torture was monitored by doctors who also put ointment on the skin after torture in order not to leave any scars.
Before being released, he states he was forced to sign an agreement forswearing future involvement in the organization, failing which the alezry arrest would be “forever”. While acknowledging that article 13 permits States parties to expel an asylum seeker without an opportunity to submit the reasons against expulsion and without having an opportunity to have the case reviewed if there are “compelling reasons of national security”, the author argues that such an exception should be construed narrowly in order to respect the purpose and spirit of the Covenant.
Nor did Sweden seek to propose any amendments to the draft assurances swedden by the Egyptian side after the December meeting. Alzery’s expulsion to Egypt. A request was directed to the High Commissioner that her Office carry out an investigation into the matter as a basis for an assessment of the effectiveness and implementation of the diplomatic assurances provided by Egypt.
When Sweden later tried alzry do some follow-up on the issue, the agreement in the letter proved woefully inadequate. He feared he would suffer similar fate.
The article stated that the organization in question supported a continued armed struggle against the Egyptian government and that members would be tried before a military court, depriving them the right to a fair trial, inter alia as a conviction in a military court could not be appealed. Alzery’s original counsel confirming current counsel’s continuing authority to act. He was then drugged per rectum with some form of tranquilliser and placed in diapers.
Any objection to the existing counsel’s power of attorney therefore had to invalidate the original January authority. Human Rights Watch published a harsh criticism of both the deportation from Sweden and the trial in in Egypt of Ahmed Agiza.
Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery – The Rendition Project
Click here to read the account in full. Firstly, it questioned whether the communication was in fact submitted on behalf of the alleged victim, suggesting that Mr. Some of these examinations were also flawed because of misinformation or unwillingness on the Swedish government’s part to submit information, creating sweven uncertain legal situation for Mr.
He was held there until the second week of December This procedure was considered satisfactory provided that decisions were provided to counsel in a more rapid manner. Moreover, although the visits by the ambassador were to occur monthly, the meetings were not conducted alone; Egyptian personnel were always present and taking notes.
Throughout, the security team did not speak at all, communicating instead with hand signals. He was provided a lawyer for the first such hearing, but was not allowed to meet him before. The author notes that the person expelled at the same time as he had been and covered by the same assurance subsequently received a trial in a military court in patently unfair circumstances, which Sweden was not permitted to monitor.
The High Commissioner responded by letter of 26 May This handling was later condemned and found illegal by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. He is represented by counsel see, however, paras. He however believed that he would be arrested and tortured if returned to Egypt because of these wrongful accusations. No signs of maltreatment were visible.
Unsuccessful negotiations to this end prolonged the delay in filings to the European Court. This was followed in October circular memorandum of the National Police Board, which in February was incorporated into the Board’s regulations with immediate effect. The Swedish embassy personnel were not allowed to be present during the sittings of the trial, except for the last day. Many of the co-accused had already been sentenced to death and executed. This was the situation, particularly if no new circumstances were at hand.
As to the claim under article 14, the State party failed to understand the lack of fair trial given that no trial took place, in Egypt or in Sweden.
From the decision of inadmissibility rendered by the European Court of Human Rights in October to the submission of the communication to the Committee in Julya further eight months had elapsed. Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners. To date, the State party has received contradictory information about these wishes. Alzery been accepted as a complainant or party to any investigation.
In conclusion I asked whether there was anything else they wished to say to me. These guidelines set out that given the severe consequences of exclusion for an individual and its exceptional nature, it is swede that rigorous procedural safeguards in relation to this issue are built into the refugee status determination procedure.
At one point, he contends he was seized and tortured hung up-side-down by the ankles, beaten and “dipped” head first in water. Alzery, including the effort to procure an investigation of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and to reach an agreement for his return to Sweden. 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 swedem international expertise into the course of factual events in Egypt subject to the expulsion supra, at para 3.
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. The reservation was further intended to avoid “appeal” from the European Court to the Committee. The men thus spoke Arabic but, according to Mr.