being arrested and subsequently tortured, or even executed, upon return to that
country, given his past military functions, as well as the fact that he had expressed his
political views in public.
In support of his claim, he submits that, according to Amnesty International
and other international human rights organizations, persecution, arbitrary arrests,
torture and ill-treatment, unfair and sometimes secret trials, imprisonment and capital
punishment of political opponents frequently occur in Iran.
The complainant submits that he has no relatives and friends, nor any place to
stay in Iran, and that he had not returned to that country during the 21 years since his
departure. All his family and friends live in Sweden, including his three children,
whom he might not see again, given that he will be 67 years old in 2015.
The complainant claims that the same matter has not been, and is not being,
examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and
that he has exhausted domestic remedies.
The State party’s observations on admissibility:
On 13 June 2003, the State party challenged the admissibility of the
communication on grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and lack of
substantiation of the complainant’s allegations.
The State party describes relevant domestic legislation1 as follows: Expulsion
on account of a criminal offence constitutes a special sanction for offences, and can be
ordered by the court if a convict has been sentenced to a more severe sanction than a
fine and if it may be assumed, on the basis of the nature of the offence and other
circumstances, that he/she will continue to commit criminal offences in Sweden, or if
the offence is so serious that the convict’s expulsion is warranted. When considering
whether or not an alien should be expelled, the court must consider his or her family
circumstances, the period that he or she has resided in Sweden and the question of
Reference is made, in particular, to chapter 4 of the Swedish Aliens Act (1989).