Application No. 21406/93
by Z., S. and H.
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
10 March 1994, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
F. ERMACORA
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
E. KONSTANTINOV
D. SVÁBY
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 21 February 1993 by
Z., S. and H. against Sweden and registered on 22 February 1993 under
file No. 21406/93;
Having regard to :
- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
28 April 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicants on 18 June 1993;
- the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 18 October
1993;
- the observations submitted by the Government on 10 February
1994 and by the applicants on 16 February 1994;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1957. She is the
mother of the two other applicants, Iranian citizens born in 1980 and
1982 respectively. Before the Commission the applicants are represented
by Ms. Lena Isaksson, a lawyer practising at Umeå.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
According to the applicants, the first applicant in 1977 joined a
dissident movement in Iran which later became part of a political party.
Subsequently she became the President of the women's branch of the party
in Teheran, her tasks including educating women about their rights. In
1981 the activities of the party were banned by the Iranian Government.
The first applicant's late husband worked for the same party. In
1982 he was imprisoned essentially on account of anti-Islamic activities.
In 1985 he was executed, having refused to apologise publicly for his
activities. The execution has been confirmed by Amnesty International.
In 1984 the first applicant was convicted of various anti-Islamic
and related activities and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and a
suspended sentence of a further five years. In prison she was flogged.
In the beginning of 1985 the first applicant was released, her
father having pledged certain real property as a "security". As her
suspended sentence was not revoked, she was to report to the authorities
once a month and was prohibited from leaving Iran. Following her release
she pursued her dissident activities underground.
In 1989 the first applicant was again imprisoned and flogged,
following which she was briefly hospitalised. Later in 1989 she was again
released from prison, again after her father had pledged certain real
property as a "security".
Fearing further persecution, the applicants left Iran in June 1991
and arrived in Sweden on 14 July 1991, where they immediately lodged
requests for asylum.
On 13 December 1991 the National Immigration Board (statens
invandrarverk) rejected the asylum requests, ordered the applicants to
be expelled (avvisas) and issued a prohibition on return valid until
1 January 1994.
On 14 December 1992 the Aliens Appeals Board (utlänningsnämnden)
upheld the National Immigration Board's decision, considering, inter
alia:
(translation from Swedish)
"[The first applicant] has thrown away her passport and travel
documents. The reason for this must be assumed to be an attempt not
to disclose certain circumstances of relevance to the assessment of
her and her children's right to asylum. She claims to have been
unable to work politically as from 1981. Following her release [from
prison] ... in 1984 she was not subjected to any measure by the
authorities until ... 1989. She was then arrested for having aided
and abetted another person released from prison ... and for having
known that her [late] husband had been hiding weapons. She was
acquitted due to lack of evidence. Thus, it has not been
substantiated that she has been politically active from 1981
onwards, nor that she is wanted due to such activity.
Having regard to the above and the time which has elapsed since the
execution of the applicant's husband, the Aliens Board agrees with
the assessment made by the National Immigration Board. [The
applicants] shall not be considered ... refugees ... "
In a forensic report of 26 January 1993 Dr. K.S. states the
following about the first applicant's state of health:
(translation from Swedish)
"...[The first applicant] has scars on her face and on the lower
part of her legs, ... pigmentations on her chest, her shoulders and
her back ... [T]he scars may have been caused in the manner
described by [her] ... [T]he reason behind the changes in her
pigmentation cannot be stated with certainty, but it cannot be
excluded that they may have been violently caused in the manner
described by [her] ..."
In a statement of 27 January 1993 the Swedish branch of Amnesty
International supported the applicants' assertion that the first
applicant would risk imprisonment and torture, if the applicants were
returned to Iran.
On 7 February 1993 the applicants, invoking new evidence, lodged a
further request for residence permits and requested suspension of the
enforcement of the expulsion order.
On 9 February 1993 the National Immigration Board rejected the
requests, but on 26 February 1993 it stayed the enforcement of the
expulsion order.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants originally alleged that, if returned to Iran, the
first applicant would clearly risk being subjected to further ill-
treatment on account of having left Iran despite her suspended sentence
and reporting-duty. The applicants invoked Article 3 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 21 February 1993 and registered
on 22 February 1993.
On 22 February 1993 the President of the Commission decided,
pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was
desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the
proceedings not to return the applicants to Iran until the Commission had
had an opportunity to examine the application.
The President further decided, pursuant to Rule 34 para. 3 and Rule
48 para. 2(b), to bring the application to the notice of the respondent
Government and to invite them to submit written observations on its
admissibility and merits.
On 8 April 1993 the Commission prolonged the indication under Rule
36 until 14 May 1993.
Following two extensions of the time-limit the Government's
observations were submitted on 28 April 1993. The applicants'
observations in reply were submitted on 18 June 1993 following an
extension of the time-limit.
On 12 May 1993 the Commission prolonged its indication under Rule
36 until 9 July 1993.
On 14 May 1993 the applicants were granted legal aid.
On 8 July 1993 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the
admissibility and merits of the application. It further prolonged its
indication under Rule 36 until further notice.
At the hearing, which was held on 18 October 1993, the parties were
represented as follows:
The Government
Mr. Carl Henrik EHRENKRONA Agent, Assistant Under-Secretary
for Legal Affairs, Ministry for
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Erik LEMPERT Adviser, Permanent Under-
Secretary, Ministry of Culture
Mrs. Ulrika DACKEBY Adviser, First Secretary, Ministry
of Culture
The applicants
Ms. Lena ISAKSSON Counsel
Mr. Bo JOHANSSON Assistant counsel
The first applicant was also present.
Following the hearing the Commission decided to adjourn the
examination of the application awaiting the outcome of a fresh request
for a residence permit which the applicants were to lodge with the
Swedish authorities. The Commission also prolonged its indication under
Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure until further notice.
On 10 February 1994 the Government informed the Commission that on
24 January 1994 the National Immigration Board had granted the applicants
a permanent residence permit in Sweden.
On 16 February 1994 the applicants informed the Commission of their
wish to withdraw their application.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicants have been granted a
permanent residence permit in Sweden and that, accordingly, they wish to
withdraw their case before the Commission. Having regard to Article 30
para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission finds that the applicants
do not intend to pursue their petition. Furthermore, it finds no special
circumstances regarding respect for Human Rights, as defined in the
Convention, which require the continuation of the examination of the
application.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy