CAT/C/38/D/270&271/2005
Page 2
ANNEX
DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE UNDER ARTICLE 22 OF THE
CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR
DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT
Thirty-eighth session
Concerning
Communication Nos. 270 & 271/2005
Submitted by:
E. R. K. and Y. K. (represented by counsel)
Alleged victim:
The complainants
State party:
Sweden
Date of the complaint:
19 May 2005 (270/2005) and 12 June 2005
(271/2005) {initial submission}
The Committee against Torture, established under Article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 30 April 2007,
Having concluded its consideration of complaint Nos. 270 & 271/2005, submitted to
the Committee against Torture on behalf of E. R. K. and Y. K. under article 22 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the complainant, his
counsel and the State party,
Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against
Torture.
1.1 The complainants are Messrs. Y. K. (Communication no 270/2005)1, and E. R. K.
(Communication no. 271/2005), who are brothers and Azerbaijani nationals. They claim to be
victims of violations of article 3 by Sweden of the Convention against Torture and Other
1
The original communication no. 270/2005 related to two complainants, Y. K. and his
brother E. N. K. On 15 May 2006, in light of the fact that E. N. K. received a permanent
residence permit on humanitarian grounds in Sweden on 20 December 2005, the part of the
complaint relating to him was withdrawn by the complainants from communication no.
270/2005 and subsequently discontinued by the Committee against Torture during the 36th
session. Thus, the only complainant remaining from communication 270/2005 is Y. K.
However, as the complaints of the other two brothers (Y. K. and E. R. K.) depend on the facts
of their brother E. N. K.’s case, the facts of E. N. K.’s case, the State party’s submission and
the complainants’ comments relating to E. N. K.’s case are included in this decision.