CAT/C/71/D/913/2019
requested that the Committee lift the interim measures. On 26 November 2019, the
Committee, acting through the same Rapporteur, granted the State party’s request.
Facts as submitted by the complainants
2.1
In 2008, L.H.’s mother and brother were killed in their home with three friends of her
brother who were active opponents to the regime in Ingushetia. Their house was burned and
destroyed. At that time, L.H. was living elsewhere with her family. Two months later, her
husband went missing in Moscow. She tried to investigate his disappearance, however, she
was threatened by men in military clothes, who told her to stop searching for her husband.
She was also questioned by the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, where
she was told to stop her attempts to investigate her husband’s disappearance and to never
speak about it. After that, she went into hiding. Her relatives informed her that some people
had come to look for her at their homes. After all of those events, being scared for her life
and the life of her young daughter, she decided to flee the Russian Federation. In 2009, the
cousin of L.H. was taken from his home, and he was later found to have been tortured and
killed. In several local newspapers, he was accused of being part of a terrorist group along
with the complainant’s brother.
2.2
Beginning in 2010, on several occasions, people came looking for L.H. at the home
of her uncle. Her uncle informed her that he had received a document summoning her to court.
Moreover, L.H. was officially declared a missing person, with a request to establish her
whereabouts. About 6 months before the submission of the present complaint to the
Committee, her uncle and his son were arrested in Ingushetia.
2.3
L.H. suspects that her phone calls with her uncle had been monitored. For example,
she received a call to her Swedish phone number from an unknown person speaking Chechen
who threatened that she must return home and that the caller knew her whereabouts.
2.4
L.H. first applied for asylum in Sweden in 2009. The process resulted in the decision
of the migration authorities to expel her, in February 2012. Due to the fear for her life and
the life of her daughter, she decided to neglect the expulsion order and to stay in Sweden.
2.5
On 3 March 2016, L.H. applied for asylum again. She provided the same reasons for
protection as the ones submitted in the previous asylum procedure, namely, that she and her
daughter were at risk of being detained and killed by the police and the Federal Security
Service because of her brother’s political engagement. In the process, L.H. was allowed to
clarify crucial parts of her story. Moreover, she presented certain documents that proved that
the threat against her and her daughter’s life was real. On 29 March 2018, the Swedish
Migration Agency rejected her application. It questioned her credibility and noted that her
account did not correspond with human rights reports on the Russian Federation. Furthermore,
the Agency questioned the authenticity of the evidence provided as being of “limited value”.
2.6
On an unspecified date, L.H. appealed that decision to the Migration Court of Appeal,
which denied leave to appeal on 12 November 2018. At the time of submission of the
communication, the complainants were residing in Sweden and awaiting deportation to the
Russian Federation, following the rejection of their asylum application.
Complaint
3.
The complainants claim that their forcible deportation to the Russian Federation by
Sweden would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. L.H. will be exposed to
a real risk of arrest, detention and torture in case of return.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
By note verbale of 24 September 2019, the State party referred to its relevant domestic
legislation and indicated that the Swedish authorities had considered the complainants’ case
in accordance with the Aliens Act of 2005, the Act temporarily restricting the possibility to
obtain residence permits in Sweden of 2016 and article 3 of the Convention. It recalled the
facts and the complainants’ claims.
4.2
The State party submits that, on 30 May 2012, the complainants applied for residence
permits, or a “re-examination” of the issue of residence permits, pursuant to chapter 12,
2