## Facts

- Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza, an Egyptian national, alleged he had previously been arrested and tortured in Egypt in the early 1980s.
- After leaving Egypt, Agiza lived in several countries and was later convicted in absentia by an Egyptian military court on terrorism-related charges.
- Agiza and his family sought asylum in Sweden; Swedish authorities considered him a national security risk.
- On 18 December 2001, Sweden decided to expel Agiza to Egypt on national security grounds, relying in part on undisclosed information not made available to Agiza or his counsel.
- Before removal, Sweden obtained diplomatic assurances from Egypt that Agiza would not be tortured or ill-treated, would not face the death penalty, and would receive a fair trial; Sweden also arranged consular monitoring visits after return.
- The removal involved extraordinary security measures, including transfer to foreign operatives at an airport, forcible restraint and sedation, and air transport to Cairo.
- In Egypt, Agiza was held incommunicado for weeks; during monitored consular visits that were not private, he alleged torture and ill-treatment and later challenged the fairness of subsequent military-court proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether Sweden violated Article 3 of the Convention against Torture by expelling Agiza to Egypt despite substantial grounds for believing he faced a foreseeable, real, and personal risk of torture.
2. Whether diplomatic assurances from Egypt, together with post-return monitoring by Swedish officials, sufficiently reduced any torture risk to permit removal under Article 3.
3. Whether national security considerations and reliance on undisclosed information could affect or limit Sweden’s obligations under Article 3.

## Decision

- The Committee against Torture found Sweden breached Article 3 by expelling Agiza to Egypt in the circumstances of his case.
- The Committee concluded that the risk assessment at the time of removal established substantial grounds for believing Agiza faced a foreseeable, real, and personal danger of torture.
- The Committee determined that the diplomatic assurances and monitoring arrangements did not provide effective protection against that risk.
- The Committee indicated Sweden was required to provide an effective remedy, including measures such as compensation and prevention of similar violations.

## Legal Principles

- A state may not remove a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture; the danger must be foreseeable, real, and personal.
- In assessing risk, authorities must consider all relevant factors, including credible information about a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass human rights violations in the receiving state, together with the individual’s profile.
- Diplomatic assurances do not, by themselves, eliminate a manifest Article 3 risk where they lack effective enforcement and reliable, independent verification, particularly when obtained from a state with documented torture practices.
- The prohibition on removal to a risk of torture is absolute; national security concerns and terrorism allegations do not create an exception to Article 3 obligations.
- Subsequent events may corroborate foreseeability, but an Article 3 breach turns on the risk known or knowable at the time the removal decision was made.

## Conclusion

The Committee held that Sweden violated the absolute non-refoulement duty in Article 3 by expelling Agiza to Egypt despite a high, individualized torture risk, and that diplomatic assurances and non-private monitoring could not neutralize that risk or justify removal on national security grounds.


Agiza v. Sweden, Comm. No. 233/2003, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (U.N. Comm. Against Torture 2005)