CAT/C/39/D/303/2006
Page 4
own initiative, may grant a residence permit, inter alia, if there is reason to believe that the
intended country of return will not be willing to accept the alien or if there are medical
obstacles to enforcing the order. Furthermore, a residence permit may be granted if it is of
urgent humanitarian interest for some other reason. The 2005 Act establishes a new order for
examination and determination of asylum applications and residence permits. These cases are
now normally dealt with by three instances: the Migration Board, the Migration Court and the
Migration Court of Appeal.
4.3 According to the State party, the Migration Board rejected the complainant’s
application for asylum on five grounds: firstly, the general situation in Azerbaijan did not in
itself constitute grounds for asylum; secondly, the complainant had spent four months after
his departure from Azerbaijan in Moscow and Berlin but had failed to apply for asylum at the
first safe country he arrived in; thirdly, the AXCP party is an opposition party in Azerbaijan
and the Board was not convinced by his assertion that he was a leading party member at age
19; fourthly, the Board did not find it credible that, as claimed by the complainant, his trial for
murder was to be held only ten days after his arrest, that he did not know the name of the
alleged victim and that he had managed to escape from police custody; fifthly, the Board
found that the applicant’s health was not such as to grant him a residence permit on
humanitarian grounds. The complainant’s appeal to the Aliens Appeal Board was rejected on
20 January 2006. The Appeal Board questioned the veracity of his statements concerning his
escape from the police and the fact that despite being wanted by the authorities he had
managed to leave Azerbaijan. It also referred to the improved human rights situation in
Azerbaijan, since its membership of the Council of Europe (CoE) in January 2001 and the
view that membership of opposition political parties do not generally involve a threat of
reprisals from the authorities unless the individuals concerned are in leading positions. Lastly,
the author’s health condition was not considered severe enough to constitute grounds for a
residence permit on humanitarian grounds.2
4.4 The Migration Board decided on its own initiative to examine whether he qualified for a
residence permit under the temporary wording of Chapter 2, Section 5, b of the Aliens Act
and appointed counsel to represent him before the Board. On 8 September 2006, it found that
there were no new circumstances or arguments made by the complainant and that the
arguments submitted mostly concerned the general situation in Azerbaijan. The medical
reports demonstrated that he suffered from a chronic disease, but that it was not possible to
conclude that this condition was life threatening. It stated that adequate medical care was
available in Azerbaijan and that financial problems in obtaining medical care or a lower
standard of medical care provided in Azerbaijan than in Sweden does not in itself constitute
grounds for a residence permit.
4.5 On 4 December 2006, the complainant filed an application for a stay of the enforcement
of the expulsion order, residence permit and re-examination under chapter 12, Section 19 of
the 2005 Aliens Act. On 27 March 2007, the Migration Board rejected his application,
2
The Migration Board assessed in this regard the medical certificates provided by the
complainant. He submitted that a medical certificate dated 20 January 2005, stated that he had
been subjected to blows with blunt and sharp instruments against the back of his hands, trunk,
sternum, neck and head. He also presented a medical report, dated 10 March 2005, stating that
he suffered from a kidney disorder called “nefrotic syndrome”, which is a condition involving
too low levels of albumin. It states that his condition may deteriorate if he does not get
adequate treatment and that there is a certain long term risk that he might require chronic
dialysis treatment.