Case Analysis from European Court of Human Rights

            This case is about an Iraqi national man, who was born in Iraq in 1979, and currently living in the country of Sweden. An application for the asylum was moved by this Iraqi man in Jan 18, 2008. This application reached the Migration Board of Sweden. As per the application details, Iraqi man told that belongs to Sunni sect of the Muslims, and he was living in the Southern Iraqi District.

        There he developed a love relationship with a Shiah Muslim Girl, but he was denied by his family to get married with a Shiah Muslim girl. He was also harassed by girl’s cousins to stay away from this proposal. So, couple decried to run away, and they lived in Baghdad in a relative’s house. However, they told a lie to their families that they have married each other, and their families told them to get back and they will allow this marriage.

        They returned back but betrayed by the families, as the woman was killed by her father in the name of honor, and firing was also done on the applicant. Somehow, the applicant was able to reach Sweden, and asked for the asylum, but his asylum application was rejected by the Migration Board. The applicant made an appeal to the Migration Court, but previous decision was upheld by the court as well.

Key Issues:

The key issue in this case is whether there has been a breach of Article 2 & 3.

Relevant Laws & Information:

        The first relevant law applicable to this case was Aliens Act and as per this act a refugee seeking asylum and protection from Sweden, must be granted that protection. Before deporting a refugee, it must be reviewed whether there are any chances of an inhuman treatment. The most relevant part of the Aliens Act in the case was section 1 of the chapter 12, which asserts that if any person is exposed to any possible inhuman act, torture or persecution, if he/she goes back to his/her country of origin, then the alien should not be sent to his/her country on these grounds.

The law that was viewed by the court was if there was a violation on the convention of Article 2 that, everyone has the right to be protected by the law & 3 that, no one shall be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment/punishment.

Decision:

The court found that there is not a breach of the convention as per the Article 2 or 3.

Reasoning:

            The complaint was made by the applicant that Articles 2 & 3 has been violated from the convention in his case. As per the judgment in §35 of MYH and Others v Sweden, it is confirmed that male Iraq Sunni will not be accepted in KRG area without a sponsor. In addition, majority also found that it has not proven that Iraqi cannot settle in anywhere in world outside of his home region. Then court decided, in the cases of life safety and risks, such vagueness can’t be tolerated. However, government was making a claim that applicant was not able to provide enough evidence to conclude that his life was in danger in Iraq.  The court agreed and that there was not a breach of the convention from the Swedish government. Moreover, it was thought that matter can also be handled by the local authorities.

Analysis:

        Looking at the arguments given by the applicant and the government, it was time for the court to make a decision. The court found out that Iraqi man was not able to provide enough evidence to prove his life-threatening situation in Iraq. He was also not able to convince the court that local authorities are not capable to handle the matter, so his appeal was denied by the court, but it was said that it is not the final judgment, and government was asked that they should not deported the Iraqi man until a final verdict is given by the court.

        Keeping this decision in view, it can be said that government was enforcing its sovereign rights, and no violation of Convention Articles 2 & 3 were found. If government thinks that asylum is not applicable, then they have the right to do so. This human right issue was not a severe one to declare that Sweden was violating the standards of human rights. The sovereign state has the right to decide whether they would entry of any refugee or asylum seeker in their country or not. It should not be confused with human rights.