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.

Author: Gurisar Daizuru
Country: Turks & Caicos Islands
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Science
Published (Last): 19 April 2016
Pages: 243
PDF File Size: 3.90 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.87 Mb
ISBN: 409-5-52625-434-1
Downloads: 94626
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dazilkree

The Swedish authorities, while expressing their disappointment, were unable to further act. In the author’s view, the State party lacked both the competence and desire to appropriately monitor the author’s situation, despite the concerns expressed from a variety of national and international quarters.

This handling was later condemned and found illegal by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. In the Ombudsman’s view, the azlery 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.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery

Any objection to the existing counsel’s power of attorney therefore had to invalidate the original January authority. He is represented by counsel see, however, paras. He was forced to confess to crimes he had not committed. The State party noted that the author submitted claims of torture, ill-treatment and death, as well as absence of access to court and to effective remedies to the European Court of Human Rights, which declared the case inadmissible for introduction out of time.

In addition to the Government’s knowledge of the human rights situation in Egypt, the author was being expelled for being a security risk and under accusation of being responsible for terrorist acts in Egypt, exposing him to clear risk of torture and incommunicado detention.

Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.

Rather, he was to be treated like any one swedeen suspected of being threat to national security. Counsel had neither access to the author nor wished to enmesh the latter’s family, of simple background, in a vulnerable and potentially dangerous situation.

The Committee emphasizes that there was no possibility for review of any kind of this decision. The interlocutor rejected the accusations as something to be expected from “terrorists”. Alzery was one of sweeen suspects.

Alzery’s statement as a reflection of his true intent had to be treated with considerable caution.

He was then escorted to the police station at the airport, where he was handed over to some ten foreign agents in civilian clothes and hoods.

In its annual reports thereon, the Swedish Government expresses concerns as to torture of suspected terrorists in particular by the security police. The administration swede obtained a statement from a high-ranking Egyptian government official stating that the men would be treated humanely and in accordance with the Egyptian constitution.

  ANALISIS Y DISEO ESTRUCTURADO YOURDON PDF

In addition, counsel sought to exhaust ssweden to a national or international complaint that would not be as intrusive or dangerous for Mr. He is not permitted to speak with journalists or human rights groups. On 11 May the Swedish Foreign Minister addressed a letter to the High Commissioner, describing inter alia unsuccessful efforts that had been undertaken on the Swedish part to bring about an investigation in Egypt for the purpose of independently establishing the facts in view of the allegations of torture and ill-treatment that followed on the expulsion of the two Egyptian nationals to that country.

Alzery’s previous telephone contact with a national human rights organization see para 3. She argued that the power of attorney of January to Mr.

In the light of these efforts, the State party leaves to alaery Committee the question of whether there alzety been a violation of article 7 in this respect.

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. The Migration Board referred his asylum claim to the Government after the Security Police made the assessment that he was considered to constitute a security risk.

June Learn how and when to remove this template message. At the same time, Swedish law requires that the head of the Foreign Ministry shall be kept informed when a question of importance for the relations to another state or to an intergovernmental organisation is raised at another state sweeen. If it turns out that they cannot be trusted, we will have to get back to this issue.

In the State party’s view, it might be questioned whether a decision by the Committee not to consider the present communication inadmissible on this basis might not undermine respect for the Court and its decision.

At the first hearing in Marchthe author complained of the torture and ill-treatment that he had suffered. The two men were arrested on the street, in one case, and in a telephone booth while talking with his lawyer, in the other, and they allzery driven to the airport within a few hours, and given over to a group of American and Egyptian personnel who flew them out of the swefen within minutes. In MayAhmed Agiza was included as one of three plaintiffs later joined by two morein a case filed against Jeppesen Dataplan alleging complicity sseden their rendition and torture.

The author argues that the Swedish Government sought to exclude c from refugee protection on the grounds of his alleged association with Islamist groups in Egypt, although the Government could not prove such a connection.

  GGSIPU PROSPECTUS 2013 PDF

Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery – The Rendition Project

He further argued that he had not had access to court or an effective remedy with respect to the allegations of terrorist activities against him, and that his expulsion order had not been examined by a court.

In accordance with Swedish law, these sweddn were undertaken promptly and independently after complaints were filed, and thus there is no violation of article 7 in this respect.

He was convicted in his absence intogether with others, by a military court in Cairo for membership in Talal al-Fatah, allzery illegal organisation. Without access to the full assessment by the Security Police, the author suggests that the only reason he was expelled was because he was on a form of “wanted” list in Egypt, and presumably also in the United States of America.

Deciding to go into business, he built a small breeding farm. Counsel disputed, moreover, that the Swedish Embassy had been in regular contact with Mr.

Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden

On 26 Septemberthe Ambassador informed counsel by fax that as the author was detained, he did not have a right to sign the power of attorney. Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery Photo: During the interview, he stated that he had never been involved with the movement he was accused of being involved in, and that he strongly rejected any violence as a mean to reach any political goal. He was then drugged per rectum with some form of tranquilliser and placed in diapers.

Retrieved March 29, Agiza and al-Zery both alleged they had received electrical shocks to their genitals. The Committee noted that the State party subsequently withdrew its objection to this aspect of the admissibility of the communication. The main reason however for the Ombudsman not prosecuting was that because the prosecutor previously had decided not to press charges, he had conducted the investigations as an open investigation and not a criminal investigation, and had thus not informed the police officers who gave statements that what they said could be used against them in a court of law.

While unable to report or comment on reasons for foreign officials’ actions in this case, the State party accepts that certain steps taken at Bromma seeden were too far-reaching in relation to the actual risks involved. Speaking thereafter, separately, to the author, the latter did not make any statement about f treatment but according to the Embassy report only b it he had to answer the questions posed to him and that he already had said all the wanted to say.