Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 152
May 2012
S.F. and Others v. Sweden - 52077/10
Judgment 15.5.2012 [Section V]
Article 3
Expulsion
Refusal of asylum to Iranian dissidents who had actively and openly campaigned against the regime since their arrival in respondent State: deportation would constitute a violation
Facts – In 2007 the first two applicants, a married couple of Kurdish and Persian origin, sought asylum in Sweden after leaving their native Iran. They submitted that their political activities and opposition to the Iranian regime meant that their lives would be at risk if they returned to Iran. The first applicant had campaigned in favour of the Kurdish cause, and had spent a month in prison there in 2003 because of his activities. Since their arrival in Sweden, both the first and second applicants had been politically active, attending meetings of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI) and featuring in news programmes broadcast on satellite channels banned in Iran. The second applicant had started working regularly for a Kurdish television channel known to be critical of the Iranian regime. Their asylum requests were rejected by the Swedish migration board and courts, which found that while their story sounded credible, it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities would persecute them, given their low ranking as Kurdish-rights activists.
Law – Article 3: The human-rights situation in Iran gave rise to grave concern. The information available from a number of international sources showed that the Iranian authorities frequently detained and ill-treated people who peacefully participated in opposition or human-rights activities in the country: anyone who demonstrated or in any way opposed the regime was at risk of being detained and ill-treated or tortured. However, the reports of serious human-rights violations in Iran were not of such a nature as to show, on their own, that there would be a violation of the Convention if the applicants were expelled to Iran.
Turning to the applicants’ personal situation, the Court noted that the first applicant had sympathised with the KDPI only at a low political level in Iran and that a considerable time had elapsed since his arrest in 2003. He had been able to continue his work and life as normal after his time in prison and there was no indication of any further attention from the Iranian authorities. These circumstances were not by themselves sufficient to find that the applicants would be at risk of proscribed treatment if expelled. However, the applicants had been involved in extensive and genuine political and human-rights activities and incidents since their arrival in Sweden, having appeared on several internet sites and television broadcasts and played leading roles in raising human-rights issues in Iran and criticising the regime. The second applicant had been the international spokesperson of a European committee campaigning on behalf of Kurdish prisoners and human rights in Iran. These activities placed the applicants at risk as the information before the Court confirmed that the Iranian authorities monitored internet communications and regime critics both within and outside Iran and screened returning nationals. In this context, the first applicant’s arrest in 2003 and background as a musician and prominent athlete also increased the risk of his being identified. Additionally, the applicants had allegedly left Iran illegally and did not have valid exit documentation. Lastly, the fact that the applicants were of Kurdish and Persian origin, culturally active and well-educated, were also potential risk factors. There were thus substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if they were deported to Iran.
Conclusion: deportation would constitute a violation (unanimously).
© 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