EIT:n suuri jaosto: Ruotsin tulee oma-aloitteisesti tutkia henkilön kristityksi kääntymisen seuraukset ennen hänen käännyttämistään Iraniin

24.3.2016 | Oikeusuutiset

Markku Fredman

EIT:n suuri jaosto on eilen ratkaissut valituksen, jossa oli kyse kristityksi kääntyneen henkilön käännyttämisestä Iraniin. EIT totesi, että koska kansalliset tuomioistuimet eivät olleet lainkaan arvioineet uskonnon vaihtumisen merkitystä, tulee asia tutkia uudelleen kansallisesti; muutoin kyseessä olisi EIS 2 ja 3 artiklan loukkaus.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The case F.G. v. Sweden (application no. 43611/11) concerned the refusal of asylum to an Iranian national converted to Christianity in Sweden. The applicant, F.G., notably alleged that, if expelled to Iran, he would be at a real risk of being persecuted and punished or sentenced to death owing to his political past in the country and his conversion from Islam to Christianity.

In [a] Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:

that there would be no violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, on account of F.G.’s political past in Iran, if he were deported to his country of origin, and that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention if F.G. were to be returned to Iran without a fresh and up-to-date assessment being made by the Swedish authorities of the consequences of his religious conversion.

The Court pointed out that the case involved important issues concerning the duties to be observed by the parties in asylum proceedings.

The Court considered that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the national authorities, in their decisions refusing asylum, had been wrong to come to the conclusion that F.G. had been a low-profile activist or political opponent and was not therefore in need of protection in Sweden. Indeed, they had taken into account F.G.’s political activities against the Iranian regime, as well as the fact that he had been arrested on a number of occasions and summoned before the Iranian courts. Nor could the Court conclude that the asylum proceedings had in any way been inadequate as concerned its assessment of F.G.’s political activities.

However, as concerned F.G.’s conversion to Christianity, the Swedish authorities had so far never made an assessment of the risks that F.G. could encounter upon returning to Iran. Regardless of F.G.’s conduct (namely, the fact that he declined to invoke his conversion as an asylum ground in the original proceedings), the Court considered that the Swedish authorities would now be under an obligation – given the absolute nature of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention – to make a fresh assessment, of their own motion, of all the information brought to their attention before taking a decision on his removal.