Search
document

Document text Analytics

HARRON and ALAYO v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 28783/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45857

Document date: December 3, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

HARRON and ALAYO v. SWEDEN

Doc ref: 28783/95 • ECHR ID: 001-45857

Document date: December 3, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 28783/95

Ariko HARRON and Jessica ALAYO

against

Sweden

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 3 December 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE PARTIES

(paras. 1 - 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(paras. 4 - 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

(paras. 12 - 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 18 - 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

APPENDIX: DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

I. THE PARTIES

1. The present Report, which was drawn up in accordance with

Article 30 paras. 1 (b) and 2 of the Convention, concerns the

application brought by Mr. Ariko Harron and Ms. Jessica Alayo against

Sweden.

2. The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1962 and 1963

respectively. They are citizens of Uganda. Before the Commission they

are represented by Mr. Robert Camerini, a lawyer practising in

Stockholm.

3. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent,

Ms. Eva Jagander of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

4. The facts of the case as submitted at the admissibility stage are

set out in the Commission's decision of 7 March 1996 as to the

admissibility of the application (see the attached Appendix). They may

be summarised as follows.

5. The applicants' requests for asylum in Sweden were rejected by

the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) on 5 April 1993

and the applicants' expulsion was ordered. The decision was upheld by

the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden) on 3 June 1994.

6. The applicants' second application for asylum was rejected by the

Aliens Appeals Board on 8 September 1995.

7. On 4 October 1995 the National Immigration Board stayed the

enforcement of the expulsion order pending the Commission's decision

on the admissibility of the present application.

8. Before the Commission the applicants claimed that they had been

subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Uganda on account of their

political activities and that, if returned to that country, they would

risk further such treatment. Moreover, available medical certificates

indicated that there were clear and serious risks that they would

attempt to commit suicide or sustain permanent physical and mental

injuries if they were to be expelled. They invoked Article 3 of the

Convention.

9. After the application had been declared admissible by the

Commission, the applicants lodged a third application with the Aliens

Appeals Board. On 6 November 1996 the Board granted the applicants

permanent residence permits in Sweden and revoked the expulsion order.

10. The Government submit that, in view of the granting of residence

permits, the applicants can no longer be regarded as victims of a

violation of the Convention. In the Government's opinion, the matter

has been resolved and the application should be struck out of the

Commission's list of cases.

11. The applicants agree with the Government that the application

should be struck out of the Commission's list of cases.

III. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

12. The application was introduced on 22 September and registered on

28 September 1995.

13. On 27 September 1995 the President of the Commission decided,

pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate

to the respondent Government that it was desirable in the interest of

the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to deport the

applicants to Uganda until the Commission had had an opportunity to

examine the application. The President further decided, in accordance

with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

14. The Government's observations were submitted on 16 November 1995

after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The

applicants replied on 4 January 1996, also after an extension of the

time-limit.

15. On 7 March 1996 the Commission declared the application

admissible.

16. By successive decisions, the Commission prolonged the indication

under Rule 36, ultimately until 6 December 1996.

17. On 3 December 1996 the Commission adopted the present Report, the

following members being present:

Mr. S. TRECHSEL, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

M. VILA AMIGÓ

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

18. According to the established case-law of the Commission and the

European Court of Human Rights an applicant who obtains adequate

redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of the

Convention cannot, or cannot any longer, claim to be a "victim" of a

violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set

forth in the Convention (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, Eckle v. Germany

judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66).

19. The Commission recalls that in the present case the applicants

have been granted permanent residence permits in Sweden.

20. In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the

applicants have obtained adequate redress at the domestic level for the

alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

21. The Commission concludes therefore that the matter has been

resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention. It further finds that respect for human rights as defined

in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination

thereof.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.

H.C. KRÜGER S. TRECHSEL

Secretary President

of the Commission of the Commission

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant