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.
The author also claims that it was also clear from the Embassy reports that Embassy officials lacked experience and knowledge of how a torture victim behaves and speaks, what questions should be asked, overall of how to get as true a picture as possible.
The fates of these men has since been used in courts to prevent other deportations to Egypt from other countries, in spite of guarantees. Rather, it sought to give effect to the de facto authority which the complainant sought to confer on counsel. In any event, the Security Police should have intervened to ssweden the inhuman treatment.
According to both witnesses, the security team conducted the security inspection rapidly, efficiently and professionally. It is thus misleading to speak of prompt investigations. They acted with remarkable deference to the American officials. 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.
Their handcuffs, ankle fetters and hoods were not removed during the alzrey to Egypt. Upon return to Egypt, alsery author was at once imprisoned, interrogated and tortured, first by Egyptian general intelligence and later by state security services. 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.
As far as the complaint concerned Ministerial representatives of the Government, it was handed over to the Parliament’s Standing Committee on the Constitution, which has jurisdiction to lodge criminal charges, such as serious neglect of Ministerial duties, before the Supreme Court.
Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery – Wikipedia
The Egyptian Government dismissed the allegations but agreed to undertake an investigation. In the present case, therefore, on the strength of the information before it, the Committee concludes that the absence of any avenue of judicial or independent administrative review of the Government’s decision to expel the complainant does not meet the procedural obligation to provide for effective, independent and impartial review required by article 3 of the Convention [against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment].
The expulsion was carried out in an inhuman and unacceptable manner. 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. In AprilAgiza was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for membership in an organisation banned under Egyptian law, in a trial that failed to comport with universally recognised fair trial standards.
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. The unlawful acts by the foreign agents had not been subjected to any criminal investigation, despite complaints to the appropriate authorities. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
Byboth had made their way to Sweden, and made formal applications for asylum, based on the fact that they would be detained, tortured and even executed if returned to Egypt Agiza had been tried in absentia for terrorist activity, found guilty, and given a 25 year sentence.
Despite the investigation and findings presented by the Ombudsman in Marchthe prosecuting authorities stood by their previous legal assessment and refused to re-open the investigation, arguing that it could not alery the decision by the Ombudsman not to press charges against any Swedish law enforcement personnel. The State party accepts that finding and sees no reason to contest the corresponding claim under the Covenant, sweeen however conceding that the author was in fact tortured or ill-treated.
Nor, as a rule, does the affected individual have any right to present his case to the ministers or those government officials who take the decision, further curtailing his opportunities to submit any reasons against expulsion.
He noted that the Security Police had been tasked with the enforcement of the expulsion decision and carried the responsibility for it.
In Maythe repatriation of Agiza was also overturned.
He suggests this resulted from previous experiences where Egypt had resisted attempts of other States seeking to procure assurances of a sdeden court trial. Alzery’s original counsel confirming current counsel’s continuing authority to act. The case material is clear that the Swedish Government was aware that it would be in breach of its non-refoulement obligation if it expelled the author without more — it was on precisely this basis that the Swedish Government decided to engage in negotiations with representatives from the Egyptian government, and, after having received the assurances in question from Egypt, decided to reject the request for asylum and to execute the expulsion order immediately.
Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. The men thus spoke Arabic but, according to Mr. Counsel emphasizes that Mr. An article in the newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat described the case and named the author, stating that he had been charged in his absence.
Some of these examinations were also flawed because of misinformation or unwillingness on the Swedish government’s part to submit information, creating an uncertain legal situation for Mr. The prosecutor however promptly terminated the investigation.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.