CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017
1.2
On 12 December 2017, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure (now rule 94),2
the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, requested the State party to refrain from deporting the author to Afghanistan
while his case was under consideration by the Committee.
Factual background
2.1
The author was 5 years of age when he fled from Afghanistan to the Islamic
Republic of Iran with his family in 2003 or 2004, because of the conflict between forces of
the United States of America and the Taliban.3 The author, his mother and his siblings fled
the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2015, because his father was forced to leave to fight in the
Syrian Arab Republic. The author became separated from his other family members in
Turkey.4 He mentions that he came to Sweden at the age of 17, in September 2015.
2.2
The author is an atheist. He grew up as a Shi’a Muslim, but, after he came to
Sweden, he stopped practising the religion. The author asserts that, during his journey to
Sweden, he witnessed people suffering and dying, which made him doubt the existence of
God. He came to think that his religious dogmas were not trustworthy – and even harmful –
because of the wars and conflicts in Muslim countries and between different sects of Islam,
including the persecution of religious minority groups. He was also frustrated by the fact
that people killed themselves in the name of religion and Islam. While living in Europe, his
doubts were further nurtured by his experience of a new way of life and the conversations
he had with other people in Sweden. He no longer shows any interest in religion and takes
part in many activities that are considered to be forbidden in Islam, including drinking
alcohol and smoking. The author’s rejection of Islam is widely known among his friends,
teachers and acquaintances. It even spread in news articles and social media. 5 Although he
made a few visits to Christian gatherings in Sweden, he thought that the Christian faith was
not for him and came to the conclusion that he belonged to no religion, given that all
religions were more or less the same.6
2.3
On 30 September 2015, the author applied for asylum in Sweden. The Migration
Board of Sweden rejected his application and in its decision of 5 July 2016 ordered his
expulsion to Afghanistan.7 The author appealed the decision to the Migration Court, which
rejected the appeal on 27 February 2017. On 18 April 2017, the Migration Court of Appeal
refused leave to appeal, and the decision to expel the author to Afghanistan became final
and non-appealable.
2.4
On 12 June 2017, the author was registered by the Migration Board as having
absconded.8 On 16 June, the Migration Board therefore decided to refer the case to the
police for enforcement of the expulsion order. The author was subsequently found by the
police in connection with the investigation of a minor theft. On 7 July, the police took the
author into custody to enforce the expulsion order, given that there was reason to assume
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
This is the rule under the Committee’s former rules of procedure (CCPR/C/3/Rev.10). The equivalent
provision under the current rules of procedure (CCPR/C/3/Rev.11) is rule 94.
The author also alleges that his father was threatened by the Taliban and by the district governor, who
wanted his land. Although he claims that he lived in the Islamic Republic of Iran after he fled from
Afghanistan, it seems that he is neither an Iranian citizen nor is he entitled to live there.
The author alleges that his family travelled on a different boat. The boat sank, and they drowned at
sea.
A copy of the Swedish news story featuring the author is on file with the Committee.
The author asserts that he believes the best religion is “humanism” and that he wants to change his
name because of its reference to Arab culture and Islam.
The Migration Agency found that the author’s account of the threats against his father were vague in
nature and lacking in detail, after the examination of his asylum application and interviews conducted
with the author. In their view, the author was not able to explain why the threats against his father
would have a bearing on the author, in particular after such a long time. The author was not able to
give a detailed account of the people who wished to harm him or why he risked being subjected to
harm upon his return.
This is because the author failed to attend a meeting with the Migration Agency, and it was
impossible to contact him, given that he had left his last known address without leaving a forwarding
address.