EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Application No. 28783/95
Ariko HARRON and Jessica ALAYO
against
Sweden
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 3 December 1996)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. THE PARTIES
(paras. 1 - 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
(paras. 4 - 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
(paras. 12 - 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
(paras. 18 - 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
APPENDIX: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I. THE PARTIES
1. The present Report, which was drawn up in accordance with
Article 30 paras. 1 (b) and 2 of the Convention, concerns the
application brought by Mr. Ariko Harron and Ms. Jessica Alayo against
Sweden.
2. The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1962 and 1963
respectively. They are citizens of Uganda. Before the Commission they
are represented by Mr. Robert Camerini, a lawyer practising in
Stockholm.
3. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent,
Ms. Eva Jagander of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS
4. The facts of the case as submitted at the admissibility stage are
set out in the Commission's decision of 7 March 1996 as to the
admissibility of the application (see the attached Appendix). They may
be summarised as follows.
5. The applicants' requests for asylum in Sweden were rejected by
the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) on 5 April 1993
and the applicants' expulsion was ordered. The decision was upheld by
the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden) on 3 June 1994.
6. The applicants' second application for asylum was rejected by the
Aliens Appeals Board on 8 September 1995.
7. On 4 October 1995 the National Immigration Board stayed the
enforcement of the expulsion order pending the Commission's decision
on the admissibility of the present application.
8. Before the Commission the applicants claimed that they had been
subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Uganda on account of their
political activities and that, if returned to that country, they would
risk further such treatment. Moreover, available medical certificates
indicated that there were clear and serious risks that they would
attempt to commit suicide or sustain permanent physical and mental
injuries if they were to be expelled. They invoked Article 3 of the
Convention.
9. After the application had been declared admissible by the
Commission, the applicants lodged a third application with the Aliens
Appeals Board. On 6 November 1996 the Board granted the applicants
permanent residence permits in Sweden and revoked the expulsion order.
10. The Government submit that, in view of the granting of residence
permits, the applicants can no longer be regarded as victims of a
violation of the Convention. In the Government's opinion, the matter
has been resolved and the application should be struck out of the
Commission's list of cases.
11. The applicants agree with the Government that the application
should be struck out of the Commission's list of cases.
III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
12. The application was introduced on 22 September and registered on
28 September 1995.
13. On 27 September 1995 the President of the Commission decided,
pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate
to the respondent Government that it was desirable in the interest of
the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to deport the
applicants to Uganda until the Commission had had an opportunity to
examine the application. The President further decided, in accordance
with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to communicate the
application to the respondent Government.
14. The Government's observations were submitted on 16 November 1995
after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The
applicants replied on 4 January 1996, also after an extension of the
time-limit.
15. On 7 March 1996 the Commission declared the application
admissible.
16. By successive decisions, the Commission prolonged the indication
under Rule 36, ultimately until 6 December 1996.
17. On 3 December 1996 the Commission adopted the present Report, the
following members being present:
Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
E. BIELIUNAS
E.A. ALKEMA
M. VILA AMIGÓ
IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
18. According to the established case-law of the Commission and the
European Court of Human Rights an applicant who obtains adequate
redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of the
Convention cannot, or cannot any longer, claim to be a "victim" of a
violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set
forth in the Convention (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, Eckle v. Germany
judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66).
19. The Commission recalls that in the present case the applicants
have been granted permanent residence permits in Sweden.
20. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the
applicants have obtained adequate redress at the domestic level for the
alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
21. The Commission concludes therefore that the matter has been
resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the
Convention. It further finds that respect for human rights as defined
in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination
thereof.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL
Secretary President
of the Commission of the Commission
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy