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):||7 February 2013|
|PDF File Size:||6.73 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||19.19 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Researching the globalisation of rendition and secret detention. They did not provide for legal counsel to be appointed immediately upon return, for counsel to be present during interrogations, for sufficiently frequent private and unmonitored independent meetings or for access to independent medical examinations.
In the author’s view, Sweden was well aware that there was no other legal avenue for him to have his case heard than before a military tribunal or an emergency court, with an attendant real risk of unfair trial. Alzery, and whether any offence had been committed when the decision was enforced.
The Government has not received any information which would cast doubt at this conclusion. In his case, he argues that the evidence as to subsequent treatment was strongly probative of the initial existence of a real risk of torture. Sweden and Egypt Current Status: On the alleged lack of fair trial, the State party notes that no criminal charges were brought against the author after his return, nor did he stand trial there.
Jurisprudence – CCPR – Alzery v. Sweden
He suggests this resulted from previous experiences where Egypt had resisted attempts of other States seeking to procure assurances of a civilian court trial. According to the author, many co-accused had been in detention for years swdeen trial, a number of them had been sentenced to death and executed and others had not been freed even after an acquittal in court.
Alzery’s former counsel asked about alzerg telephone call from the Embassy and whether it was true that Mr. In the circumstances and in light sqeden the Committee’s previous practice with respect to passage of time, the Committee was not persuaded that the lapse of time was sufficiently egregious or otherwise defined by extraordinary circumstances such as the intervening election in Gobin v Mauritius 17 to amount to an abuse of process.
Refworld | Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden
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. He had not provided any information regarding the treatment prior to the Embassy’s first prison visit. A short time before, an application for residence permit was denied on grounds that he was deported.
While selected information can be revealed to the asylum seeker and 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 swedeb met or challenged by the individual.
Suicide attempts Quran desecration controversy Boycott of military tribunals Former captives alleged to have re joined insurgency Hunger strikes Force feeding Homicide accusations Juvenile prisoner Seton Hall reports.
The author recalls that he had left Egypt in on account of the persecution of individuals involved with organizations involved in Islamist opposition and the treatment he had already been subjected to.
The Security Police had kept a journal of its meetings with the Ministries. Agiza and al-Zari were held incommunicado for five weeks after their return.
He did not, therefore, even see the garments being cut to pieces.
He was repeatedly tortured, including through electric shocks, death threats, and threats of sexual abuse against his female relatives.
The State party notes, however, that as from 31 Marcha new system for judicial examination of asylum claims has been established in the form of Migration Courts and a Supreme Migration Court. As to the claim submitted to the European Court, the author argues, not least given the general importance of the case, that the procedural delays by his lawyer and sweeden inadmissibility decision by the European Court should not be a reason for the Human Rights Committee to reject the case.
At the first hearing in Marchthe author complained of the torture and ill-treatment that he had suffered.
Retrieved March 29, Alzery or his lawyer been informed of the swede of diplomatic assurances before the expulsion, he would immediately have sought interim measures at the international level. However, these investigations failed to question the decision itself, nor was the haste of its execution and the failure to inform the lawyers or allow time to have the decisions examined by international human rights bodies questioned.
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. However, the shortcomings in the actual monitoring were, in the Committee’s opinion, mainly a consequence of the lack of planning in advance.
The Swedish security police was informed that there would be a security check of the men, but they alzrry not ask what this would entail. Agiza, however, was not released until 2 August He immediately sought asylum in his own name and admitted to having used a false passport swedeen order to be able to enter the country.
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.
He could not hear anyone asking questions or talking in slzery background. Visits were less frequent during the summer vacation months and Christmas when there were intervals of two months. The district prosecutor referred the case to the Prosecutor-Director at the Stockholm Public Prosecution Authority for a decision on whether to initiate a preliminary investigation regarding events taking place on an sweeen registered abroad. Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not allowed to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners.