Waynakh Online

Top Menu

  • Archive Documents
  • Bookshelf
  • Chechen Culture
  • ECHR Cases
  • Gallery
  • Lyrics
  • Mp3
  • Poems
  • Videos

Main Menu

  • Home
  • Chechens
    • Who are the Chechens?
    • Tribal Unions and Clans
    • Religion
    • Famous Chechens
      • Chechen Academicians
      • Chechen Commanders
      • Chechen Litterateures
      • Chechen Musicians
      • Chechen Painters
      • Chechen Politicians
      • Chechen Presidents
      • Chechen Sports Men/Women
      • Names from Chechen History
  • Chechnya
    • Administrative Divisions
    • Maps
    • Geography
    • Constitution
    • Flag, Emblem and Anthem
    • Parliament
    • Presidents
    • Demographics
    • Economy
    • Human Rights Violations
    • Refugees
    • History
  • Chechen Language
    • Chechen Alphabet
    • Fairy Tales in Chechen Language (Mp3)
  • News
  • Articles
  • Interviews
  • Contact
  • Archive Documents
  • Bookshelf
  • Chechen Culture
  • ECHR Cases
  • Gallery
  • Lyrics
  • Mp3
  • Poems
  • Videos

logo

Waynakh Online

  • Home
  • Chechens
    • Who are the Chechens?
    • Tribal Unions and Clans
    • Religion
    • Famous Chechens
      • Chechen Academicians
      • Chechen Commanders
      • Chechen Litterateures
      • Chechen Musicians
      • Chechen Painters
      • Chechen Politicians
      • Chechen Presidents
      • Chechen Sports Men/Women
      • Names from Chechen History
  • Chechnya
    • Administrative Divisions
    • Maps
    • Geography
    • Constitution
    • Flag, Emblem and Anthem
    • Parliament
    • Presidents
    • Demographics
    • Economy
    • Human Rights Violations
    • Refugees
    • History
  • Chechen Language
    • Chechen Alphabet
    • Fairy Tales in Chechen Language (Mp3)
  • News
  • Articles
  • Interviews
  • Contact
News
Home›News›Removal of Chechen family from Sweden to Russia would expose them to real risk of ill-treatment

Removal of Chechen family from Sweden to Russia would expose them to real risk of ill-treatment

By admin
September 16, 2013
654
0
Share:

The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed on September 5 that the deportation of the Chechen asylum seekers to Russia would give rise to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Here is the press release:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Press Release
ECHR 251 (2013)
05.09.2013

I v. Sweden (application no. 61204/09)

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of I v. Sweden (application no. 61204/09), which is not final, the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that:

The deportation of the applicants to Russia would give rise to a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the Swedish authorities’ decision to reject a request for asylum lodged by a family from Chechnya (Russia) who stated that they would be exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment if returned to Russia.

The Court held that – while there were reasons to doubt the credibility of the applicants’ account as to why they were under threat – a number of factors taken cumulatively gave rise to a real risk of ill-treatment in case of their removal, in particular the fact that Mr I had visible signs of torture, which could indicate that he had actively taken part in the second war in Chechnya.

The Court also found that the right of the Member State of origin of the applicants to submit comments on the case, under Article 36 of the Convention (third party intervention), did not apply where the applicants’ reason for applying to the Court was their fear of ill-treatment if returned to that State. Therefore Russia was not notified of the introduction of the case.

Principal facts

The applicants, Mr and Ms I and their child, are Russian nationals of Chechen origin, who were born in 1965, 1978 and 1999 respectively and live in Vilhelmina (Sweden).

In December 2007, the family arrived in Sweden and requested asylum. They submitted that both Mr and Ms I had been tortured in Chechnya and that Mr I was wanted there on account of having documented in photos the execution of Chechen villagers by Russian federal troops between 1995 and 2007 and on account of his contacts with the journalist Anna Politkovskaja, who had been killed in 2006. According to the applicants’ submissions, Ms I had been kidnapped by the Russian Federal Security Service and Mr I had been arrested by a military guard, then detained in a cellar and forced under torture to provide information about the Chechen rebels. The torture had included having a cross burned into his chest with cigarettes.

The Swedish Migration Board rejected the applicants’ asylum request in October 2008, finding in particular that the situation in Chechnya or the situation for Chechens in Russia alone could not justify the granting of asylum and that the applicants’ account had been incoherent and partly inconsistent. Mr I had not been able to show or point to any of the pieces of documentary work he had allegedly produced over several years. Upon appeal, the decision was upheld by the migration courts and gained legal force in October 2009. In November 2009, the European Court of Human Rights applied an interim measure (under Rule 39 of its Rules of Court) in the applicants’ case, requesting the Swedish Government to stay their expulsion until further notice.

Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court

The applicants complained that if removed to Russia they would face a real risk of treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment).

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 November 2009.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), President,
Angelika Nußberger (Germany),
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),
Ann Power-Forde (Ireland),
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),
Helena Jäderblom (Sweden),
Aleš Pejchal (the Czech Republic),
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.

Decision of the Court

Article 36 (third party interventions)
The Court first addressed the question of whether the Russian Government should have been notified of the application brought against Sweden in view of the fact that the applicants were Russian nationals. Article 36 of the Convention provides a Member State with the right to submit comments if one of its nationals is an applicant in a case before a Chamber of the Court. However, the Court found that in a situation where nationals of a Member State made allegations that they would be subjected to treatment contrary to Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment), if returned to their State of origin, that State did not appear objectively in a position to support its nationals. The Court therefore concluded that Article 36 did not apply in the applicants’ case. Consequently Russia was not notified of the application.

Article 3
Having regard to the many cases before it concerning disappearances and ill treatment in Chechnya and to recent reports on the human rights and security situation in Chechnya, the Court was well aware of ongoing disappearances, of arbitrary violence, of impunity and ill-treatment in detention facilities there. It was also aware of interrogations of returnees and of their harassment and possible detention and ill-treatment by State officials. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the unsafe general situation was not sufficiently serious to conclude that the return of the applicants to Russia would amount to a violation of Article 3.

As regards the applicants’ individual situation, the Swedish authorities had not questioned that Mr I had been subjected to torture, but they had found that he had not established with sufficient certainty why he had been subjected to it and by whom. There were no indications that the proceedings before the Swedish authorities had lacked effective guarantees to protect the applicants against arbitrary refoulement.

The Court agreed with the Swedish authorities that there were credibility issues with regard to the applicants’ submissions, notably as to Mr I’s alleged work as a photo journalist over several years, which he claimed was the main reason for the applicants’ ill-treatment. On request by the Court, Mr I had not submitted any article where his name was mentioned or pointed to a single photo taken by him and published by any of the media sources he claimed had used his material. Consequently, the Court agreed that the applicants had failed to give plausible arguments that they would face a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment upon return to Russia because of Mr I’s alleged journalistic activities.

However, while a number of individual factors, when considered separately, might not constitute a real risk, they might give rise to such a risk if taken cumulatively. The Court noted that the Swedish Migration Board and Migration Court had not made a separate assessment of the specific risk in the applicants’ case, notably the fact that Mr I had significant and visible scars on his body, including a cross burned into his chest. The medical certificates stated that his wounds could be consistent with his explanations as to the timing and the extent of torture to which he maintained he had been subjected. In case of a body search of Mr I by State officials upon his return to Russia, it would be immediately visible that he had been subjected to ill-treatment for whatever reason, and it would be visible that his scars had been caused in recent years, which could indicate that he had actively taken part in the second war in Chechnya.

Taking those factors into account cumulatively, in the circumstances of the case the Court found that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment if removed to Russia. Their removal would therefore be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The Court further decided to maintain the indication to the Swedish Government, under Rules 39 of its Rules of Court, not to remove the applicants to Russia until the judgment became final or until further order.

Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The applicants had made no claim in respect of pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage. The Court therefore did not make any award under this head.

Separate opinion
Judges Villiger and Yudkivska expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

Previous Article

I v. Sweden

Next Article

Welcome Yankee Continues to Participate Festivals

Share:

Related articles More from author

  • News

    Chechen exile in UK fears explusion will mean extradition to Russia

    June 18, 2015
    By admin
  • News

    Gataev Couple are Free for Now

    March 26, 2010
    By admin
  • News

    I.Karagul: “For the custodian of Dudaev: Medet Unlu”

    May 27, 2013
    By admin
  • News

    Who is a Terrorist?

    May 17, 2010
    By admin
  • News

    Tyrannybook – The Social Network To Keep An Eye On Tyrants

    May 9, 2010
    By admin
  • News

    Abduction of University Student in Chechnya

    March 10, 2011
    By admin

Leave a reply

  • Articles

    About the Self Evidence by Akhmad Zakayev

  • News

    Land Mine Blast in Chechnya

  • Videos

    Four Floors in Bielany (Documentary Video)

Our Website in Other Languages

                        

Latest Comments

  • Mustafa
    on
    January 30, 2022
    As salam alaikum im from sesinoy we are chechens from turkey can anyone help to find ...

    Tribal Unions and Clans

  • Tumisha
    on
    October 6, 2021
    I'd love to know what my name means...

    Chechen Women Names

  • Zelim
    on
    July 17, 2021
    İm from Turkoy tayp . Turkoy tayp is not racially turk . Our Grandfathers moved to ...

    Tribal Unions and Clans

  • Anter Johnson
    on
    December 10, 2020
    Does anyone have the lyrics in english by any chance, I want to translate this song ...

    Iordanex Oylanaš – Ali Dimaev

  • Noxchi9595
    on
    October 8, 2020
    Yes, it does. Look under Noxcmaxkaxoy number 23. There you have Yeg1ashbatoy

    Tribal Unions and Clans

Find us on Facebook

Categories

Archives

Search

https://youtu.be/LRtf8UENmp8
https://youtu.be/0yiOJCJWZjU
https://youtu.be/o5oU3dXxgSU
https://youtu.be/iDCpqn62bVQ
https://youtu.be/eBaatZVQpQw
https://youtu.be/Ukk7OkjTlOk
https://youtu.be/rBzKuDNnidM
https://youtu.be/4OON0mwLMfM
https://youtu.be/A7YLIm2YC-Y
https://youtu.be/oiymVOUdIxk

Our Partners

Chechenpress
Khaaman
Ichkeria Culture Center in Austria
Qaanuoyn Dosh
World Chechnya Day
Justice for Medet Önlü

Honorary Consulate of the ChRI in Turkey

We are at Instagram

Waynakh Online

Independent Chechen website that publishes news, articles, interviews, historical documents, literary works, photographs, music and videos.


                        

Last Publications

  • March 16, 2020

    Prime Minister Zakayev’s Book Presented in London

  • February 3, 2020

    European Parliament Hosts a Conference Dedicated to Chechnya

  • October 19, 2019

    Akhmed Zakayev’s Book Presented in the House of Commons

  • August 11, 2019

    Subjugate or Exterminate!

  • August 11, 2019

    Chechnya: The Inside Story

Most commented

  • Gallery

    Gallery of Abed Arslan

    By admin
    September 14, 2009
    10
  • Articles

    Gakayev, The Enemy Kadyrov Needs

    By admin
    August 31, 2012
    9
  • Articles

    Sex Slavery and Death Await Women Seized by Kadyrov’s Bandits

    By admin
    August 16, 2011
    8
  • Famous Chechens

    Shamil Salmanovich Basayev

    By admin
    May 18, 2008
    6
  • Home
  • Contact
2000-2022 © Waynakh Online | Powered by Chechen Media