Alzery v Sweden, Merits, Communication No /, UN Doc CCPR/C/88/D/ /, () 14 IHRR , IHRL (UNHRC ), 25th October . Jurisprudence. CCPR – Alzery v. Sweden. Date: 25 October Articles: 2, 7, Comm Number: / Outcome: Violation. | View as PDF | Download. The government of Sweden expelled al-Zari and Agiza, both suspected of terrorist activities, following written UN Human Rights Committee, Decision: Alzery v.
|Published (Last):||28 August 2013|
|PDF File Size:||16.52 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.80 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Egyptian Date of Birth: Sweden and Egypt Current Status: Released, 2 August Mohamed Sulelman Ibrahim el-Zery Nationality: Released, 27 October April Agiza sentenced to 25 years in prison. Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery are two Egyptian citizens who claimed asylum in Sweden in andrespectively.
Alzerry men had, separately, been accused by the Egyptian regime of membership in violent Islamist organisations, and were subjected to swfden harassment and arrest by the Egyptian security forces. Both men allege that they were tortured while in detention in Egypt in the s.
Agiza and el-Zery left Egypt inand zlzery sought refuge alxery other Middle Eastern countries, moving on when it looked as though they may be returned to Egypt. Byboth had made their way to Sweden, and made formal applications for asylum, based on the fact that they would be detained, tortured and even executed if returned to Egypt Agiza had been tried in absentia for terrorist activity, found guilty, and given a 25 year sentence.
The Migration Board concluded that both men may have a right to be protected under asylum law and, given the conflicting views, referred the case to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for final determination. It was agreed at this meeting that the Americans would conduct their own security checks of the two men, in a police room at the airport, and that US agents would take charge from there.
Both men, who had been under surveillance, were arrested separately and driven to Bromma airport, arriving around 8.
By 9pm, the CIA aircraft had landed at the airport, and a security team of seven or eight people — all of whom were masked — disembarked and were escorted to the waiting cars. This included both men being subjected to having their clothes cut to pieces, full cavity searches, the insertion of anal suppositories, being dressed in diapers and overalls, hooded, handcuffed and strapped to a mattress on the aircraft.
Throughout, the security team did not speak at all, communicating instead with hand signals. Just before 9 p.
Officer Y went to speak to the occupants of the plane. These included, in addition to its crew, a security team of seven or eight, among them a doctor and two Egyptian officials.
Officer Y informed the American officials that A. The security team, all of whom were disguised by hoods around their heads, then went up to the vehicles in which A. One of the men was taken first to the police station by the team. Inside the station, in a small changing room, the American officials conducted what they had referred to as a security check.
According to reports, a doctor was present in the changing room. When the check had been completed, the second man was sent for and the same procedure repeated. The inquiry has revealed that this security check comprised at least the following. In addition they were handcuffed and their ankles fettered, each was then dressed in an overall and photographed.
Finally loose hoods without holes for their eyes were placed over their heads. Afterwards he was equipped with a diaper. There was only room for a very few people in the changing room. While the security checks were taking place, Y himself was standing some distance away and could not see what was happening. The two Security Police employees, a police officer and a civilian interpreter, who were with the security team in the changing room have stated that they did not see suppositories being administered to A.
Their information reveals, however, that the changing room was very crowded and so they had difficulty in observing what was going on for the entire time.
Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden
The Security Swedne officer says that because it was so crowded he left the changing room after only a short time.
He did not, therefore, even see the garments being cut to pieces.
The interpreter says that he was present for the entire time but that when E. When he looked back, E. According to both witnesses, the security team conducted the security inspection rapidly, efficiently and professionally. The members of the team swedeb not speak to each other but communicated using hand signals. Nor did any of the Security Police officials in attendance at Bromma state that they had noticed or been informed that A.
The two men were sween taken to the aircraft. Just before 10 p. Two representatives of the Security Police were on board the plane: The original intention had been for three people to accompany the plane to Egypt but late in the day they were informed by the captain of the plane that there was only room for two from the Swedish Security Police. Their handcuffs, ankle fetters and hoods were not removed during the flight to Egypt.
Click here to read the account in full. Analysis of flight data and associated documentation demonstrates that the rendition took place on board a CIA-owned Gulfstream V executive jet, with tail number NP. The logistical aspects of the rendition were arranged by Jeppesen Dataplana subsidiary of Boeing, Inc. On arrival in Egypt, the two men were handed over to Egyptian officials, and driven off in a transit bus.
Agiza was held incommunicado for the first five weeks.
He was repeatedly tortured, including through electric shocks, death threats, and threats of sexual abuse against his female relatives. He was also denied access to legal representatives. Indeed, there were sometimes up to 10 other people in the room, including the Egyptian prison guards.
In AprilAgiza was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for membership in an organisation banned under Egyptian law, in a trial that failed to comport with universally recognised fair trial standards. In fact, after testifying in court regarding his torture, Agiza was approached by an officer of the Egyptian security forces and warned not to mention it again.
El-Zery was detained at the Tora prison. He remained blindfolded until 20 Februaryand then only had the blindfold removed during visits by the Swedish Ambassador.
Moreover, although the visits by the ambassador were to occur monthly, the meetings were not conducted alone; Egyptian personnel were always present and taking notes. Early inel-Zery was moved to a wing of the prison run by Egyptian Security Services, rather than General Intelligence, and was subjected to five weeks of interrogation and torture, including electric shocks to the genitals, nipples and ears.
He was forced to confess to crimes he had not committed. He was moved again on 20 February to a correction centre where he was held in a cell measuring 1.
He was held there until the second week of December He finally learned of the reasons for his detention in late Many of the co-accused had alzfry been sentenced to death and executed. On 27 Octoberel-Zery was finally released without charge. Alzry, however, was not released until 2 August After this broadcast, the Swedish Public Prosecutor examined the case and concluded that there were no grounds for suspecting that any offence had been committed by Swedish police officers.
An inquiry was therefore not instigated.
University of Minnesota Human Rights Library
He did not investigate the expulsion decision itself, or the diplomatic assurances, both of which were outside his remit. Its report was published in Juneand concluded that the government violated its own laws in sending them to a swden where there existed a substantial likelihood of torture.
El-Zery had submitted a complaint against Sweden for alleged violations sdeden articles 2, 7, 13 and 14 of the Covenant, and article 1 of the Optional Protocol. In MayAhmed Agiza was included as one of three plaintiffs later joined by two morein a case filed against Jeppesen Dataplan alleging complicity in their rendition and torture.
Click here for further discussion of this case, and a collection of relevant documents. Click here for full documents in this case, including exhibits supporting Wigenmark’s testimony. Researching the globalisation of rendition and secret detention. Ahmed Agiza and Mohamed el-Zery Photo: