## Facts

- Mahin Ayegh, an Iranian national, entered Sweden with her minor son in February 2003 and sought asylum and residence permits.
- She initially asserted they fled because her son risked compulsory military service and possible dangerous deployment; she also later alleged school harassment after her son was seen looking at *The Satanic Verses*.
- She stated neither she nor family members had been arrested or persecuted by Iranian authorities and provided limited identity documentation.
- Swedish migration authorities rejected the claims, finding no persecution and concluding that general risk from military service was insufficient for protection; the appeal was dismissed.
- After being detained for removal, she filed a fresh request, alleging her husband had divorced her, accused her of adultery in Sweden, threatened to kill her, and that she faced corporal punishment or death in Iran.
- On the eve of removal, she submitted Persian-language documents (via her sister) said to include an Iranian court filing, summonses, and a letter from her husband requesting severe punishment.
- Swedish authorities rejected the fresh request, finding the late disclosure unexplained and the documents of little evidentiary value; an interim measure stayed removal while the international proceedings were pending.

## Issues

1. Whether removal to Iran would expose the applicant to a real risk of death or ill-treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 based on alleged adultery proceedings and spousal threats.
2. Whether the applicant substantiated her late-raised allegations with sufficiently reliable and credible evidence to meet the “real risk” threshold in expulsion cases.
3. Whether alleged harm by a private individual (the husband) was shown to be a risk against which state protection would be unavailable or ineffective.

## Decision

- The court declared the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
- It found the applicant had not shown substantial grounds for believing she faced a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 or 3 if removed.
- It gave weight to domestic credibility findings, especially the late emergence of the adultery allegations and doubts about the documents’ authenticity.
- It concluded the initial asylum narrative (military service concerns and school incident) did not reach the Article 3 threshold.

## Legal Principles

- Expulsion may engage state responsibility under Article 3 only where substantial grounds show a real risk of prohibited treatment in the receiving state, assessed in light of both general country conditions and the individual’s circumstances.
- Asylum applicants may receive some benefit of the doubt, but that does not extend to accounts that are materially late, inconsistent, lacking detail, or unsupported by reliable evidence.
- Late-introduced protection grounds, particularly when accompanied by dubious documentation, may be insufficient to displace reasoned domestic assessments.
- For risks posed by private actors, an applicant must show a real risk and that the receiving state would acquiesce in the harm or be unable or unwilling to provide reasonable protection.

## Conclusion

The case was dismissed at the admissibility stage because the applicant did not credibly substantiate that her removal to Iran would create a real risk of death or ill-treatment, particularly given the late-raised adultery claim and the limited evidentiary weight of the supporting documents.


Ayegh v. Sweden, App. No. 4701/05 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Nov. 7, 2006)