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):||2 August 2017|
|PDF File Size:||8.80 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.46 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The fates of these men has since been used in courts to prevent other deportations to Egypt from other countries, in spite of guarantees. El-Zery was detained at the Tora prison. Alzery’s release militated against the possibility of accurately demonstrating Mr. While such a concession is relevant to the Committee’s determination, it must nevertheless independently ascertain that in the circumstances of the case violations of the relevant provisions of the Covenant or the Optional Swede occurred.
In contrast to the situation in O. He also states that the Swedish Embassy in Cairo could not confirm that there was such a case as the newspaper had alleged or that Mr.
The mandate of the Ombudsman was to investigate if the Swedish Security Police had committed any crime or in any other way acted unlawfully during the execution of the expulsion order.
It follows that the communication was not inadmissible on this ground. 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. The State party details a number of further Ministerial and senior official contacts with Egyptian counterparts in ongoing attempts to procure independent, impartial investigation of the facts.
In Octoberin what counsel believed to be a safe communication with Mr. Alzery had conveyed an authority to act sufficiently alzeey at the time it was given to encompass a communication to the Committee. And as mentioned above, since both states risk being accused of having violated the absolute prohibition against torture, there is no incitement to reveal indications or information about ill-treatment.
As to the question of ongoing authority to act, counsel argued that she retains plenary power to advance the communication on Mr. The Ombudsman swedne not give reasons for this decision but the State party aweden that the reasons seem related to the fact that there was no senior official of the Security Police who had been assigned command of the Bromma operation, that the officials present had relatively subordinate ranks and that none of them felt that they bore the ultimate responsibility for the operation and that they might have felt under pressure given the urgency accorded by the Cabinet to prompt execution the day the decision had been taken.
Finally loose hoods without holes for their eyes were placed over their heads. When the check had been completed, the second man was sent for and the same procedure repeated. Counsel argued that such conduct put Mr.
Having alzeru into account all written information made available to it by the author of the communication, and the State party.
By contrast, upon return to Egypt, the author was handed over to the Egyptian General Intelligence with five weeks elapsing prior to the first visit. A major flaw was naturally that the first visit to the men was not carried out earlier. In any event, she supplied a written declaration from Mr.
Alzery responded that his lawyer in Sweden took care of all his legal matters. He is not permitted to speak with journalists or human rights groups. Ahmed Agiza alzerg Mohamed el-Zery are two Egyptian citizens who claimed asylum in Sweden in andrespectively.
The High Commissioner responded by letter of 26 May In the detention centre, he allegedly asked permission to call his lawyer but this sweeden was rejected. According to the author, many co-accused had been in detention for years without trial, a number of them had been sentenced to death and executed and others had not been freed even after an acquittal in court. The unlawful acts by the foreign agents had not been subjected to any criminal investigation, despite complaints to the appropriate authorities.
Agiza remains in prison to date after a patently unfair retrial in April The Committee further noted that it lacked the opportunity to assess whether the men were subjected to torture or other treatment in breach of the conventions.
Alzery’s phone was tapped but that the Embassy had made the assertion that discussing these matters over the phone was without risk for Mr. Released, 2 August Alzery was subject to a relatively alzeery possible sentence of seven years imprisonment under Egyptian law for the offence that the author was swedn of and that there was never sufficient evidence for him to be charged, let alone convicted, of an offence, counsel argues that no case for the national security exception in article 13 could be made out.
To date, the State party has received contradictory information about these wishes. Swedish and Egyptian authorities also agreed on a post-return monitoring swedden involving visits to the men in prison.
Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery – Wikipedia
Such relinquishment of public authority was unlawful. 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.
Advice by certified letter of the decision only reached counsel after the expulsion. Alzery “at great risk”, and argued that the State party thus sought to put pressure on Mr.
The security services of Sweden had recommended that the men’s requests for asylum be denied on security grounds. After having been assured that Mr.
Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden
The mechanics of the visits that did take place, moreover, failed to conform to key aspects of international good practice by not insisting on private access to the detainee and inclusion of appropriate medical and forensic expertise, even after substantial allegations of sweddn emerged. The Government ordered the author’s immediate expulsion. Retrieved March 29, Inhe completed his studies and decided the same year to leave the country, having been harassed and repeatedly arrested by the Egyptian Security Services because of his activities in the organization.
Two apzery from the Embassy of the United States of America were also present during the apprehension and treatment of the applicant.
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.
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.
The Minister declared that the Government was prepared to lend its full support to the investigation and to provide financial resources, if need be.