CAT/C/66/D/729/2016
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant was living in the village of Asinovskaya in Chechnya from 1996.
In 2007, his cousin, T.C., joined the Chechen rebel forces and the complainant helped him
from time to time with food and clothing. At some unspecified date in 2007, the
complainant’s house was stormed by people wearing camouflage clothing who tried to
abduct him, but his wife’s entreaties stopped them. In 2009, T.C. killed a local policeman in
the city of Grozny before being killed himself. Sometime later, in the middle of the night,
two men came to the complainant’s house and wounded him with a knife. When his family
woke up, they fled. Soon thereafter the complainant discovered that the family of the
policeman who had been killed by his cousin had declared a “blood feud”. He, together
with his father, attempted mediation, without success. The complainant did not approach
the authorities, since he knew they would not take action.
2.2
The complainant does not specify his date of arrival in Sweden. He requested
asylum on 2 September 2013. In his asylum application, he claimed that he could not
relocate in the Russian Federation, since the family of the policeman killed by his cousin
had contacts in the police and could find him anywhere, and because he had no relatives
elsewhere in the Russian Federation. The complainant also explained in his asylum request
that, in the past, he had assisted his cousin with food and clothing for the rebels.
2.3
The Swedish Migration Agency rejected the complainant’s application on 12
September 2014. The Agency believed that the complainant was under the threat of a blood
feud and could not turn to the Chechen authorities. It found, however, that, as a victim of a
blood feud, the complainant did not come within the definition of refugee under the Aliens
Act, which corresponds to the definition in article 1A of the Convention relating to the
Status of Refugees and extends to non-State actors. It also concluded that, since the
complainant was of no interest to the authorities, he could relocate to smaller coastal cities
of the Russian Federation, like Murmansk, Saratov, Volgograd or Samara. On 16 March
2015, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal and maintained the decision of
the Migration Agency. On 11 May 2015, the Migration Court of Appeal denied the
complainant leave to appeal the Migration Court’s decision.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that his deportation to the Russian Federation would violate
his rights under article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment because he would be at personal risk of being
persecuted, tortured and ill-treated upon return. The author claims that the risk exists due to
the blood feud declared against him, and his connections to the Chechen rebels.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
By a note verbale dated 1 July 2016, the State party submitted its observations on
admissibility and the merits, also recalling the facts of the case and providing excerpts from
relevant domestic legislation. The State party submits that the complainant’s case was
assessed under the Aliens Act of 2005. The migration authorities, upon examination of the
facts of the case, concluded that the complainant had not shown that he was in need of
protection.
4.2
The State party provides its own translations of the proceedings of the Swedish
migration authorities to show the reasoning behind the State party’s decision to expel the
complainant. The findings confirm that the complainant is not in need of protection and can
be expelled to the Russian Federation. The complainant applied for asylum on 2 September
2013, and his request was rejected on 12 September 2014. The decision was appealed to the
Migration Court, which on 16 March 2015 rejected the appeal. On 11 May 2015, the
Migration Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and the decision to expel the
complainant became final.
4.3
On 5 June 2015, the complainant claimed before the Swedish Migration Board that
there were “impediments” to the enforcement of the decision to expel him and requested a
re-examination of his case. That request was rejected on 21 July 2015. The Migration
Agency subsequently held discussions with the complainant to discuss his and his
2