## Facts

- Mohammed Alzery, an Egyptian national, entered Sweden in 1999 and sought asylum, alleging political persecution and an in absentia conviction by an Egyptian military court tied to Islamist activity.
- Swedish migration authorities initially viewed him as potentially in need of protection, but classified security intelligence alleged terrorist involvement and shifted decision-making to the Government.
- On 18 December 2001, the Government rejected asylum and ordered Alzery’s immediate expulsion to Egypt, relying on undisclosed security material while acknowledging circumstances consistent with refugee status.
- Sweden obtained diplomatic assurances from Egypt concerning humane treatment and fair trial guarantees; the assurances were general and lacked independent monitoring or enforceable consequences for breach.
- The expulsion was carried out the same day at Bromma airport with participation of foreign security agents; Alzery was stripped by cutting off his clothes, subjected to intrusive searching, shackled, given a rectal suppository or sedative, placed in a diaper and overalls, hooded, and flown to Egypt.
- After arrival, Alzery was detained for an extended period and alleged torture and ill-treatment, including beatings and electric shocks during incommunicado detention.
- Swedish officials conducted post-return visits, beginning weeks after detention, not in private, and without medical personnel, limiting their capacity to detect or prevent abuse.
- Alzery filed an individual complaint to the Human Rights Committee alleging violations of ICCPR arts. 7, 13, 14, and 2(3) arising from the expulsion decision and its execution.

## Issues

1. Whether Sweden violated ICCPR article 7 by expelling Alzery to Egypt despite substantial grounds for believing he faced a real risk of torture or ill-treatment.
2. Whether Sweden violated article 7 independently through the methods used to execute the expulsion on Swedish territory.
3. Whether Sweden violated article 13, read in conjunction with article 7, by denying meaningful procedural safeguards to contest expulsion grounded in secret intelligence.
4. Whether Sweden violated article 2(3) by failing to provide effective remedies regarding both the expulsion decision and the manner of removal.
5. Whether the circumstances required a separate finding under article 14(1).

## Decision

- The Human Rights Committee found Sweden violated article 7 by expelling Alzery where a foreseeable, real risk of torture or ill-treatment existed at the time of removal.
- The Committee also found an independent violation of article 7 based on the degrading treatment inflicted during the airport handover and transport process.
- The Committee found Sweden violated article 13, in conjunction with article 7, because the expulsion process lacked minimum safeguards needed where removal could expose a person to torture.
- The Committee found Sweden violated article 2(3), in conjunction with articles 7 and 13, for failing to secure effective remedies addressing the expulsion and its implementation.
- The Committee did not find a separate violation of article 14(1), treating the procedural deficiencies principally under article 13.
- The Committee indicated Sweden should provide an effective remedy, including appropriate compensation, and take steps to prevent recurrence.

## Legal Principles

- A State violates ICCPR article 7 if it removes a person when substantial grounds show a real risk of irreparable harm, including torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, in the receiving country.
- Risk assessment for article 7 non-refoulement must consider both the general human rights situation in the receiving State and the individual’s personal circumstances as known at the time of expulsion.
- Diplomatic assurances do not negate an article 7 risk unless they are reliable and effective; general assurances without independent monitoring and enforceability are insufficient, especially where torture is well documented.
- A State bears responsibility under article 7 for degrading treatment occurring on its territory during enforcement of removal, including where it allows foreign agents to control the process without effective oversight.
- Under article 13, when expulsion may expose an individual to article 7 harm, procedural guarantees must be robust, including a genuine opportunity to present reasons against expulsion and meaningful review by a competent authority.
- Heavy reliance on undisclosed security intelligence, without meaningful disclosure or effective independent review, can render article 13 protections ineffective where article 7 risks are implicated.
- Article 2(3) requires accessible and effective remedies for claimed violations, including challenges to both the legality of removal decisions and the manner in which removals are carried out.

## Conclusion

The Committee concluded Sweden breached the ICCPR by expelling Alzery despite a real risk of torture in Egypt, by subjecting him to degrading treatment during the expulsion operation, and by denying effective procedural safeguards and remedies in a national-security expulsion grounded in secret intelligence and unsupported diplomatic assurances.


Alzery v. Sweden, Commc’n No. 1416/2005, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (H.R.C. 2006)