CCPR/C/132/D/3266/2018
orientation. He further claims that by separating him from his boyfriend the State party would
violate his rights under article 17 of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 2 September 2019, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and the merits of the communication. It submits that the communication should be found
inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation of the author’s claims. With regard to the
author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant, the State party does not contest the fact that
all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. However, with regard to the claims
raised under article 17, the State party notes that the author has not at any point during the
domestic proceedings raised these claims before domestic authorities. It therefore submits
that his claims under article 17 should be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust all
available domestic remedies. Should the Committee find the communication to be admissible,
the State party submits that it is without merits.
4.2
The State party notes that the author initially applied for asylum in Sweden on 5
November 2015. The Migration Agency rejected his application on 3 February 2017. The
decision was appealed to the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal on 6 July 2017. On
17 August 2017, the Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and the decision to
expel the author became final. On 4 December 2017, the author was apprehended and placed
in a detention centre.
4.3
The author subsequently submitted an application to the Migration Agency for a
residence permit pursuant to chapter 12, section 18, of the Aliens Act or a new examination
of the issue of a residence permit pursuant to chapter 12, section 19, of the Aliens Act, citing
impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order. On 28 February 2018, after
conducting a new examination of the author’s cited need for protection, the Migration
Agency rejected the application. The decision was appealed to the Migration Court, which
on 18 June 2018 referred the case to the Migration Agency for further examination. After
another investigative interview, the Agency again, on 16 July 2018, decided to reject the
application. The decision was appealed to the Migration Court, which rejected the appeal on
31 August 2018. The Migration Court of Appeal decided on 9 October 2018 not to grant the
author leave to appeal and the decision to reject the application became final.
4.4
As to the merits of the complaint, the State party notes that the Migration Agency held
an introductory interview with the author in connection with his asylum application on 8
November 2015. On 29 November 2016, an extensive asylum investigation that lasted three
hours was held in the presence of the public counsel. The minutes from the interview and the
investigation were communicated to the public counsel. Both the interview and the
investigation were also conducted with the assistance of interpreters, whom the author
confirmed that he understood well. After the initial grounds claimed by the author for asylum
had been investigated and examined by the domestic migration authorities and the decision
to expel him had become final, the author was granted a new examination of the issue of a
residence permit based on newly invoked grounds for international protection. The Migration
Agency held a new asylum investigation with the author on 12 February 2018, lasting more
than four hours and focusing primarily on his alleged sexual orientation. On 14 February
2018, a supplementary investigation was held, lasting one hour and still focusing on the
author’s alleged sexual orientation. The minutes from the investigations were subsequently
communicated to the public counsel. Upon appeal, the Migration Court held an oral hearing
with the author on 5 June 2018.
4.5
On 18 June 2018, the Migration Court referred the case to the Migration Agency for
further investigation regarding the author’s cited conversion to Christianity. The Agency
consequently held another asylum investigation with the author on 28 June 2018, lasting more
than two hours, and focusing primarily on his alleged conversion. The minutes from the
investigations were subsequently communicated to the public counsel. Upon appeal, the
Migration Court held an oral hearing with the complainant on 13 August 2018. The
investigations and the hearings were all conducted in the presence of the author’s public
counsel and with the assistance of interpreters, whom the author confirmed that he understood
well. Through his public counsel, the author has been invited to scrutinize and submit written
observations on the minutes from the interviews conducted, and to make written submissions
3