Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)112[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Bader and Kanbor against Sweden
(Application No. 13284/04, judgment of 8 November 2005, final on 8 February 2006)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that in this case the Court found that the applicants’ deportation to Syria, if implemented, would give rise to violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Sweden’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention;
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2 of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)112
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Bader and Kanbor against Sweden
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the dismissal of the asylum application of the applicants, a Syrian national, his wife and their children and the adoption in 2003 of a decision ordering their deportation to Syria. The first applicant had been found guilty in absentia of murder by a Syrian Court and sentenced to death. The Swedish authorities considered that his fear of being arrested and executed was not well-founded and that the family was not in need of protection.
The European Court found that the Swedish authorities would be putting the first applicant at serious risk by sending him back to Syria without having any assurance that he would receive a new trial and that the death penalty would be neither sought nor imposed. Moreover, because of the summary nature of the trial in Syria which had led to the death penalty sentence being imposed on the first applicant, and of the total disregard for his rights of defence, the Court considered that these proceedings must be regarded as a flagrant denial of a fair trial. There were thus substantial grounds for believing that the first applicant would be exposed to a real risk of being executed and subjected to treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3, if expelled to Syria. Accordingly, the Court found that the deportation of the applicants to Syria, if implemented, would give rise to violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
No just satisfaction was awarded in this case.
b) Individual measures
The applicants were granted a permanent residence permit on 27 October 2005. This measure seems to ensure that the applicants are not expelled to Syria. Therefore, no further individual measure appears necessary.
II.General measures
Having regard to the direct effect granted to the Convention and to the case-law of the European Court in Swedish law, the government considers that the dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to the competent authorities is sufficient measure for execution.
The government indicated, in this respect, that the European Court’s judgment has been translated and published at the government’s internet site () and has been sent out to the relevant authorities.
In addition, the authorities indicated that the appeal procedure in cases concerning aliens was changed in March 2006. The former appeal organ, the Aliens Appeal Board, was replaced by special Migration Courts, thus creating a three-level appeal system with the Administrative Court of Appeal in Stockholm (Kammarrätten i Stockholm) as the highest instance. Moreover, a new Aliens Act entered into force at the same time. It provides clearer rules on the issue of residence permits and places more emphasis on grounds for protection.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent other similar violations and that Sweden has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46 paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 September 2010 at the 1092nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy