Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 128
March 2010
R.C. v. Sweden - 41827/07
Judgment 9.3.2010 [Section III]
Article 3
Expulsion
Proposed deportation to Iran of a person who had been ill-treated in detention for criticising the Iranian Government: deportation would constitute a violation
Facts – The applicant is an Iranian national who arrived to Sweden in 2003 and requested asylum. He submitted that he had taken part in a demonstration criticising the Iranian Government in 2001, following which he had been arrested, tortured and kept in detention for almost two years, before managing to escape and illegally leave Iran. During his detention, he had not been officially charged or tried before the Iranian courts, although some sort of religious trial by a revolutionary court had taken place, in which he had been brought before a priest, who had decided on his continued imprisonment. The applicant also produced a medical certificate dated 2005 which confirmed that injuries on his body could well have originated from torture. The Swedish authorities doubted the applicant’s story pointing out that he had never been a member of a political party or of a movement critical of the regime, nor had he been a leading figure in the 2001 demonstration. Moreover, they refused to accept the medical report as proof that the applicant had actually been tortured. His asylum application was therefore rejected. At the request of the European Court, in 2008 the applicant submitted a forensic medical report, whose findings strongly indicated that he had been tortured.
Law – Article 3: Even though there were uncertain aspects to the applicant’s story, his account had in principle been consistent throughout the proceedings and there were no reasons to doubt his overall credibility. It was corroborated by the medical certificate dating from 2005. If the Swedish authorities had had any doubts about that evidence, they should have arranged for an expert report. The forensic medical request that had been submitted at the Court’s request had also concluded that the applicant’s injuries strongly indicated that he had been a victim of torture. Further, from the information available on the situation in Iran, it was clear that anyone who demonstrated or in any way opposed the regime risked being detained and tortured. It was therefore irrelevant whether or not the applicant had assisted in the organisation of the said demonstration. In view of the foregoing, the Court found that the applicant had substantiated his claim that he had been detained and tortured by the Iranian authorities. According to the information available from independent international sources, Iranians returning to their home country who were unable to prove that they had left legally were particularly likely to attract the authorities’ attention. The applicant – who claimed to have left Iran illegally, a fact that had not been disputed by the Government – consequently ran a high risk of being detained and ill-treated on account of his past activities if he was returned to Iran.
Conclusion: deportation to Iran would constitute violation (six votes to one).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy