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: Felar Dulkis
Country: Guyana
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Environment
Published (Last): 22 August 2014
Pages: 27
PDF File Size: 15.36 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.55 Mb
ISBN: 679-9-59355-665-7
Downloads: 94128
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Nikoran

The deportation was carried out by American and Egyptian personnel on Swedish ground, with Swedish servicemen apparently as passive onlookers. Sweden had negotiated guarantees from Egypt, however, there are allegations that both men were tortured, but Sweden has been unable to prove or disprove these allegations, due to refusal by Egyptian authorities to allow proper investigations.

Alzery was released without charges after two years in prison, but was not aalzery to leave his village, nor could he speak to foreigners. Agiza was sentenced to 15 years in prison in a military tribunal. Both men had sought asylum in Sweden; Zery using a false passport.

Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery – The Rendition Project

The security services of Sweden had recommended that the men’s requests for asylum be denied on security grounds. The administration had 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. On this basis, the government decided on their immediate deportation. 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 were 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 country within minutes.

Zweden and al-Zery both alleged they had received electrical shocks to their genitals. In the meantime, the lawyer who experienced the interrupted conversation called the Swedish foreign office to figure out what was going on, but could not find anyone who could tell. Instead, he was told that no decision had been reached. The Foreign office sent certified letters to the lawyers, but these arrived two days after the men were in Egyptian custody.

This haste circumvented all procedural rules and deprived the detainees and their lawyers of all opportunity to question the reasons, to verify the correctness of the information underlying alzeyr decisions, or to supply corrections or additional information.

The men and their lawyers were never allowed to learn about the accusations against them on which the security services based their recommendation. For example, it appears that the government believed they had obtained a letter from the Egyptian authorities with clear promises of respecting the human rights of the alzdry. When the letter was later disclosed, it turned out to promise only that they would be treated in accordance with Egypt’s constitution and law.

When Sweden later tried to do some follow-up on the issue, the agreement in the letter proved woefully inadequate.


This could have been discovered before the deportation, quite independent of the different views of the actual danger the men posed to Sweden, and would almost certainly have been discovered had due process rules been observed. This handling was later condemned and found illegal by the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman. The United Nations Human Rights Committee found the deportation of Alzery a breach of Sweden’s obligations under the international treaties that Sweden has entered into. The primary ground was the obvious and well known risk of torture to which Alzery was exposed.

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.

Navigation menu

And Agiza has several times publicly denounced Al Zawahiri and his ideology of swexen. He was convicted in his absence intogether with others, by a military court in Cairo for membership in Talal al-Fatah, an swedden organisation. The proceedings took 20 minutes. Before the deportation, the Swedish authorities had been concerned about the danger that the men could be tortured in Egypt. They had obtained a guarantee from Egypt that they would not be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment, that they would be given fair trials, and that the Swedish embassy personnel would be allowed to visit the men in prison.

However, the Swedish decision to rely on such promises has been strongly criticized. In hindsight, it appears that the Swedish mode of action was strongly influenced by the events alaery the attack on the New York twin towers of the World Trade Center on September 11, three months earlier. At the time there was a strong desire among European governments to show solidarity with the USA, and to appear like reliable partners in security issues.

The Egyptian compliance with the given guarantee leaves something to be desired. The Swedish embassy personnel were not allowed to be present during the sittings of the trial, except for the last day. During visits, the men were not allowed to communicate privately with the embassy personnel, nor could an independent medical examination be had. The fates of these men has since been used in courts to prevent other deportations to Egypt from other countries, in spite of guarantees.

Human Rights Watch published a harsh criticism of both the deportation from Sweden and the trial in in Egypt of Ahmed Agiza. This organization had a representative present in all four sittings of the trial.

The deportation only became widely known to the general public after the Swedish television network TV4 in its series Kalla fakta Cold Facts in May reported on the deportation under the heading “The broken promise”, by the journalists, Sven BergmanFredrik Laurinand Joachim Dyfvermark. After the publication, the Swedish government was dismissive in its responses to inquiries from members of the Swedish parliament. Criminal investigations was undertaken twice, but no crime was found. The Parliamentary Ombudsman examined the handling of the case after the decision had been made, and criticised harshly various aspects of the degrading treatment of the subjects at the airport.


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.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery

The United Nations’ Human Rights Committee found that Sweden had “at least plausible grounds for considering, at the time, the case in question to present national security concerns. In Marchthe Swedish government overturned the decision to repatriate Alzery.

A short time before, an alzry for residence permit was denied on grounds that he was deported. In Maythe repatriation of Agiza was also overturned.

In Novemberthe Swedish government on appeal denied the renewed applications for residence in Sweden that had been submitted following the formal overturning of the repatriations in Wweden In Julythe Dweden government granted Agiza a permanent residence permit. In Januaryit was claimed that the United States had threatened to impose trade barriers on the European Union if the two men were not transferred.

Reporter Eva Franchellfriend of the deceased foreign minister Anna Lindhwitness to her murder, and at an earlier stage her press secretary, published a book about Lindh where she described the difficulties surrounding the repatriation decision, as well as the participation of other politicians who allegedly later conveniently shoved the responsibility over to the deceased Lindh.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues swedrn the talk page. Learn how and when to remove these template eweden. The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page.

Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met.

March Learn how and when to remove this template message. This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. June Learn how and when to remove this template message. Retrieved 20 June American Civil Liberties Union.

Archived from the original on United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original PDF on June 17, Archived from the original swedden November 25, Retrieved March 29, Controversies swecen people captured alzry the War on Terror. 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.

Enhanced interrogation techniques Ghost detainees Waterboarding Destruction of interrogation tapes.

Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery – Wikipedia

Retrieved from ” https: Views Read Edit View sweddn. Languages Svenska Edit links. This page was last edited on 22 Octoberat By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Posted in <a href="" rel="category tag">Technology</a>