EIT:lta langettava tuomio Ruotsille tsetseenien mahdollisesta luovuttamisesta Venäjälle

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on tänään antamassaan tuomiossa katsonut, että Tsetseniasta turvapaikkaa Ruotsiin hakemaan tulleita henkilöitä ei saa käännyttää Venäjälle, koska heitä odottaa siellä varteenotettava mahdollisuus kaltoin kohtelusta (real risk of ill-treatment).

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

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.

Koko lehdistötiedote, jossa myös linkki koko tuomioon, löytyy täältä: I v. Sweden