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:||United Arab Emirates|
|Published (Last):||22 February 2007|
|PDF File Size:||8.35 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.74 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Early in the proceedings the Ombudsman elected not to conduct a criminal investigation. OpenDocument accessed January 1,para.
There were no senior Swedish officers present at Bromma swedsn, and those who were assigned to carry out the expulsion, relinquished authority and control to the foreign agents involved. He is represented by counsel see, however, paras.
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 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. Further, the State party details training and reorganisation of the Security Police, strengthening of specialist resources for such situations and clarifying lines of responsibility.
One of the men was taken first to the police station by the team. According to the Swedish Embassy, an Egyptian court directed release, but the author was not present and cannot corroborate the matter. Instead, he was told that no decision had been reached.
Refworld | Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden
When Sweden later tried to do some follow-up on the issue, the agreement in the letter proved woefully inadequate. It remained unclear whether current counsel for the author had been properly authorised by her client to bring his case before the Committee. Deciding to go into business, he built a small breeding farm. There was thus no violation of article 13 of the Covenant. Alzery’s intent without risk to him, particularly with reference to events transpiring when Swedish counsel visited see para 3.
The author recalls that he had left Egypt in on account of alzety persecution of individuals involved with organizations involved in Islamist opposition and the treatment he had already been subjected to.
Jurisprudence – CCPR – Alzery v. Sweden
All acts of as well as attempts of and complicity in torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment are offences under domestic law, punished appropriately grave penalties, consistent with article 7 of the Covenant. Since his sweven, the author’s physical health has improved, he has completed complementary university studies in pedagogy that he commenced in prison and he has married. He adds that in the days prior to expulsion, counsel was not provided with full security reports, any detail as to the negotiations with Egypt or the timetabling of the Government’s decision; indeed, officials specifically declined to acquiesce to counsel’s alzeery for relevant records.
On 19 Marchthe author’s then Swedish counsel lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the author’s expulsion had resulted in his being tortured and ill-treated and faced the risk of being sentenced to death or killed during the torture.
On 11 May the Swedish Foreign Minister addressed a letter to the High Commissioner, describing inter alia unsuccessful efforts that had been undertaken on seeden 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.
He was moved again on 20 February to a correction centre where he was held in a cell measuring 1. For example, it appears that swedeh government believed they had obtained a letter from the Egyptian authorities with clear promises alzzery respecting the human rights of the men.
Both men had sought asylum in Sweden; Zery using a false passport. 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. Languages Svenska Edit links. In addition, the State party refers wlzery the findings of its Parliamentary Committee on the Constitution and its efforts to develop an instrument within the Council of Europe on appropriate use of diplomatic assurances.
Egyptian law only allows public counsel after formal charges are laid.
Mohamed Sulelman Ibrahim el-Zery Nationality: Although in the light of the circumstances and the author’s contentions as to his past conduct, his fear of persecution was considered to be well founded, entitling him protection in Sweden, the Government considered that he could be excluded from refugee status. While selected information can be revealed to the asylum seeker alzwry his attorney, under strict non-disclosure orders, the grounds for the assessment are often only described in generalities and are not revealed to such an extent that they can be met or challenged by the individual.
After careful assessment of Swedish criminal law, the State party concluded that the Convention against Torture did not require amendments to domestic criminal legislation.
Retrieved from ” https: He was held there until the second week of December Archived from the original on The Government has not received any information which would cast doubt at this conclusion. Naturally, further measures must not risk affecting or jeopardizing the author’s safety or welfare in any way, and it is necessary, in the circumstances, that the Egyptian Government cooperates and concurs in any further investigative efforts.
Sweedn also contends that due to the seriousness of the alleged crimes, he could also have been prosecuted in Sweden under its personal and universal jurisdiction for such crimes.
The two Security Police employees, a police officer and a civilian interpreter, who were with the security team swedeb the changing room have stated that they did not see suppositories being administered to A. Alzery, the interpreter brought up the Agiza decision of the Committee against Torture, suggesting that decision could be a “good opportunity” also for him.