## Facts

- An Afghan national living in Sweden applied for asylum and residence permits after arriving with her husband in 2004; Swedish authorities denied the claims and later refused reopening requests.
- She later stated she separated from her husband, initiated divorce proceedings in Sweden (opposed by the husband), and sought protection based on changed personal circumstances.
- She asserted she had an extra-marital relationship with a Swedish man and feared that, if returned, she would be perceived as having committed adultery, exposing her to severe punishment and family retaliation.
- She claimed her family in Afghanistan had reacted angrily and disowned her, leaving her without family protection on return.
- Country materials before the court described severe restrictions and violence against women in Afghanistan, including honor-based violence, widespread domestic abuse with limited enforcement, and imprisonment of women for alleged “moral” offenses.
- The European Court indicated an interim measure to prevent removal while the case was examined.

## Issues

1. Whether removing the applicant from Sweden to Afghanistan would expose her to a real risk of treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. Whether general conditions for women in Afghanistan, combined with the applicant’s personal circumstances (separation, pursuit of divorce, years living in Sweden, alleged extra-marital relationship), established the required individualized risk.

## Decision

- The court held the application admissible.
- The court held that deporting the applicant to Afghanistan would violate Article 3.
- The court reasoned that, although Afghanistan’s general situation did not automatically bar all removals, the applicant’s particular profile created a real risk of ill-treatment.
- The court found that women perceived as not conforming to prescribed gender roles face heightened danger and that effective state protection against such harms was lacking in practice.

## Legal Principles

- Article 3 is absolute; a state may not remove an individual where substantial grounds show a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the receiving country.
- Risk assessment considers current conditions and must evaluate both general country information and the applicant’s individual circumstances.
- General insecurity or human rights problems in a receiving state are not, by themselves, sufficient to prohibit removal in every case; the decisive question is individualized real risk.
- Gender and perceived transgression of social or religious norms can be central to Article 3 risk, including exposure to honor-based violence, coercion, detention for “moral” offenses, and social exclusion.
- Evidentiary gaps do not preclude relief where credible country information and the applicant’s overall circumstances support a finding of real risk.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that returning the applicant to Afghanistan would breach Article 3 because her status as a separated woman seeking divorce, after years living in Sweden and alleged to have violated sexual and social norms, would likely expose her to serious harm, including honor-based violence and abuse, without effective protection from Afghan authorities.


N. v. Swed., App. No. 23505/09 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2010)