AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 21808/93

                      by L.I.

                      against Sweden

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 September 1993, the following members being present:

           MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                 S. TRECHSEL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 F. ERMACORA

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

                 H. DANELIUS

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           MM.   F. MARTINEZ

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 G.B. REFFI

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 B. CONFORTI

                 N. BRATZA

           Mr.   M. de SALVIA, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 5 May 1993 by L.I.

against Sweden and registered on 6 May 1993 under file No. 21808/93;

      Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 4 June 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by

the applicant on 8 July 1993;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicant is an Iranian woman born in 1972. She is presently

detained by the Swedish authorities with a view to expulsion to Iran.

Before the Commission she is represented by Mr. Ingemar Strandberg, a

lawyer in Stockholm.

      The facts, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as

follows.

Particular circumstances of the case

      The applicant entered Sweden on 21 April 1992 from France and

applied for asylum.

      Allegedly, her father has been a member of the Mujahedin since

1963. During the years 1972-74 the family lived in France. She was,

however, born in Iran and was a couple of months old when the family

moved to France. After the father moved back to Iran he was sentenced

to death because of his Mujahedin activities. His sentence was

subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. He managed to flee from

prison and during the last five years he has been a Mujahedin leader

in Iraq.

      The Mujahedin organisation in Iran is a truly fundamentalist

movement, whereas its branches abroad tolerate Christians. Its purpose

is to overturn the present regime in Iran and replace it with a

democratic state where women would also enjoy political rights.

      The applicant's participation in the movement consisted of

distributing tracts on various subjects. Some described the massacres

of Mujahedin supporters in the Evin prison caused by the prisoners'

alleged refusal to comply with the Muslim dress code. This was,

however, only a pretext for executing the Mujahedin supporters.  Others

related the United Nations' condemnation of the crimes against human

rights committed by Iran.

      In the summer of 1991 the applicant was allegedly arrested

because revolutionary guards claimed that her dress was improper. When

searching her the guards also discovered that she carried certain

forbidden literature. As her dress was in fact proper, she believes

that she was arrested on suspicion of belonging to the Mujahedin. She

was sentenced to birching and a heavy fine. She was detained for six

days. While detained she was tortured and raped, but she did not

disclose anything about her connections with the Mujahedin. She

believes she was raped in order to make sure that she was not a virgin,

as virgins may not be executed under islamic law. She was then birched

and released after signing a letter promising not to engage in any

political activity again. She was also informed that she would be

sentenced to 5-10 years' imprisonment if caught again.

      Despite her arrest she continued her work for the Mujahedin. One

week before she fled to Sweden she learnt on the radio that her group

leader had been arrested. She received a message from her father

advising her to leave Iran because she risked execution as a result of

having broken the above-mentioned promise. With the help of her father

and some smugglers she managed to go to Dubai, from where she went to

Amsterdam on an Algerian passport. From Amsterdam she travelled to

Sweden. Throughout the journey she was accompanied by the smugglers and

so was not obliged to show any documents herself. She does not remember

what airlines they used, nor can she explain her possession of a

boarding card from Paris. She does not wish to give details about her

trip in case she would reveal any Mujahedin secrets.

      After her arrival in Sweden she was informed by her mother that

the police had searched her house in Iran and discovered certain

forbidden literature.

      While in Sweden she converted to the Christian faith and was

baptised on 21 January 1993 in the Missionary Church (missionskyrkan).

She had been introduced to the local Christian congregation by friends

and felt a calling to convert. According to an affidavit from the

priest who baptised the applicant, her conversion is genuine. The

affidavit also referred to the persecution in Iran of converted Muslims

and stated that conversion meant death, as such persons no longer

receive the protection of the law.

      On 22 April 1992 the National Immigration Board (statens

invandrarverk) decided to send the applicant back to France for the

following reasons:

      (translation from Swedish)

      "[The applicant] came to Sweden on 21 April 1992 from France.

      [She] has now applied for asylum because she fears that she will

      be persecuted in her home country.

      ... [The applicant] is protected against persecution in France

      ... and against being sent back to her home country or to some

      other country where she does not enjoy the same protection. There

      is no reason to engage in a closer examination of her reasons for

      not wanting to return to her home country.

      ... [A]ccordingly, ... it is obvious that there is no ground for

      granting asylum. It is also obvious that there is no other reason

      for granting a residence permit."

      Two enforcement attempts were unsuccessful, the French

authorities having refused to receive the applicant. On 21 July 1992

the National Immigration Board quashed its decision insofar as the

expulsion was to be made to France. The applicant appealed to the

Aliens' Appeals Board  (utlänningsnämnden). In its opinion of 6 August

1992 to the Aliens' Appeals Board, the National Immigration Board

stated the following:

      (translation from Swedish)

      "The [applicant] has invoked the following reasons for her asylum

      request. She is a member of a political organisation which is

      forbidden in her home country. She has participated in the

      organisation's activities by distributing tracts and by sending

      forbidden books and cassettes to the organisation's library.

      [She] has not been arrested, convicted or detained because of her

      political activities. [She] was arrested one year ago because she

      did not wear suitable clothes. She was punished because a

      forbidden book was found when she was searched. The reason for

      [her] leaving Iran was that her group leader had been arrested

      and that she had been advised to leave the country. After her

      arrival in Sweden she has learnt through her mother that the

      guards have searched her home.

      The reasons invoked are not such that [the applicant] has a right

      to asylum under Chapter 3, Section 1 ... of the 1989 Aliens Act

      (utlänningslag 1989:529). Neither are there any other special

      reasons for granting her a residence permit. The National

      Immigration Board accordingly proposes that the Aliens' Appeals

      Board reject the ... application ... [and that] the applicant be

      expelled to Iran ... ."

      Following an oral hearing, the Aliens' Appeals Board rejected the

applicant's appeal on 20 April 1993 and ordered her expulsion to Iran.

The Board stated the following:

      "[The applicant] has received the opportunity to provide

      information about her travel to Sweden. [She] has maintained that

      she came to Sweden via Amsterdam, despite the police

      investigation which showed that she came through Paris. She has

      subsequently explained that she does not wish to provide

      information on her travel route, as she wants to protect the

      persons who helped her. In reply to a direct question [she] has

      admitted that what she stated about her travel was untrue. [She]

      has stated that she is no longer sure how she came to Sweden. The

      fact that [she] has changed her statements as to the route she

      took in order to go to Sweden is apt to decrease the

      trustworthiness of the other information she has provided in

      support of her request ...

      [The applicant] has submitted a baptismal certificate to the

      Board. This has led the Board to make certain inquiries.

      According to these [the applicant] converted from Islam on 21

      January 1993 in the Missionary Church in Ånge.

      In order for an assertion of conversion to be acceptable, it is

      important that the person concerned has provided information

      which cannot be questioned. When determining the trustworthiness

      of an assertion, references will often play a decisive role.

      The baptiser in the above mentioned congregation has confirmed

      the applicant's conversion both orally and in writing and he has

      explained the surrounding circumstances. According to the

      baptizer the act was preceded by discussions about the Christian

      faith.

      [The applicant] has not told her relatives in Sweden and Iran

      about her conversion.

      The Board notes that [the applicant's] representative was

      informed on 19 January 1993 of the Board's intention to hold an

      oral hearing. The baptismal certificate is dated 21 January 1993.

      Considering all the circumstances surrounding [the applicant's]

      asserted conversion, the Board finds that the fact that [she]

      converted after the Authority gave its decision, and knowing that

      a decision from the Board was likely to be given shortly, speak

      against the genuine character of the conversion. The other

      circumstances around the conversion are also such that they can

      be questioned. The circumstances seem rather to indicate that the

      conversion was made in order to enable [the applicant] to obtain

      a residence permit in Sweden. The asserted conversion can,

      accordingly, not constitute a ground for asylum.

      Considering all the circumstances of the case, the Board does not

      find that [the applicant] has made a probable case that she is

      a refugee within the meaning of Chapter 3, Section 2, of the

      Aliens Act. Nor are there any such circumstances as are mentioned

      in Chapter 3, Section 1, para. 3, of the same Act.

      There do not otherwise exist any reasons for granting [the

      applicant] a residence permit."

      On 22 April 1993 the National Immigration Board rejected a

further request for a residence permit. On 5 May 1993 the Police

Authority of Sundsvall ordered the applicant's detention with a view

to enforcing the expulsion order. On 6 May 1993 a regional daily

newspaper in Sundsvall published an interview with the applicant in

which she spoke about her conversion. On 14 May 1993 the National

Immigration Board decided to stay the enforcement of the expulsion, but

upheld the detention order, as there were reasons to believe that the

applicant would go into hiding.

      On 7 July 1993 the applicant lodged a further request for asylum,

referring to her statements, which were broadcast over two local radio

stations in Gothenburg and Stockholm, openly critisising the Iranian

Government and, in the second interview, describing her conversion. The

examination of this request has been suspended pending the outcome of

the Commission's examination of the present application.

      On 23 July 1993 the applicant's detention was revoked by the

National Immigration Board.

      The applicant has submitted an opinion of 27 August 1993 by Mr.

Jan Hjärpe, a professor at the University of Lund specialising in

Islam. Mr. Hjärpe states that apostasy is regarded as an offence

equivalent to high treason against the Iranian State, Iran being based

on Islam. Should a convert preach about his new religion or criticise

Islam, special rules apply and the person could face the death penalty.

      It appears from the applicant's statement to the Aliens' Appeals

Board that she has not told her family about her conversion, not even

her sister in Sweden, as the applicant has considered the spreading of

this information to be dangerous. However, she has told her friends

about it.

Relevant domestic law

      Under Chapter 2, Section 5, subsection 3, of the Aliens Act a

request for a residence permit lodged by an alien, who is to be refused

entry or expelled by a decision which has acquired legal force, may

only be granted provided the request is based on new circumstances and

the applicant is either entitled to asylum or there are weighty

humanitarian reasons for allowing him to stay in Sweden.

      Under Chapter 3, Section 1, an alien may be granted asylum

because he is a refugee or, without being a refugee, if he wishes not

to return to his home country because of the political situation there

and provided he can put forward weighty reasons in support of his wish.

The term "refugee" refers to an alien who is staying outside the

country of which he is a citizen because he feels a well-founded fear

of being persecuted in that country, having regard to his race,

nationality, membership of a special group in society or his religious

or political convictions, and who cannot or does not wish to avail

himself of his home country's protection (Chapter 3, Section 2).

      An alien, as referred to in Chapter 3, Section 1, is entitled to

asylum. Asylum may, however, be refused inter alia if, in the case of

an alien falling under Chapter 3, Section 1, para. 3, there are special

grounds for not granting asylum (Chapter 3, Section 4). An alien may

be refused entry into Sweden if he lacks a visa, residence permit or

other permit required for entry, residence or employment in Sweden

(Chapter 4, Section 1, para. 2). When considering whether to refuse an

alien entry or to expel him, it must be examined whether he, pursuant

to Chapter 8, Sections 1-4,  can be returned to a particular country

or whether there are other special obstacles to the enforcement of such

a decision (Chapter 4, Section 12). A refusal of entry issued by the

National Board of Immigration may be combined with a prohibition on

return for a specific period of time (Chapter 4, Section 14). In

refusing entry the Government may also issue a prohibition on return

for a specific period of time (Chapter 7, Section 5, subsection 2).

      Under Chapter 7, Section 10, the National Board of Immigration

may review its decision if new circumstances have emerged or for any

other reason, provided it would not affect the alien negatively or be

irrelevant to him. A review may take place even if an appeal has been

lodged against the Board's decision. Once the Board has handed over the

file to the Government it may only review its decision if its opinion

is requested by the Government. The National Board of Immigration may,

for special reasons, refer a request for asylum to the Government

together with its opinion in the matter (Chapter 7, Section 11).

      An alien who has been refused entry or who is to be expelled may

never be conveyed to a country where there is firm reason to believe

that he would be in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal

punishment or torture, or to a country where he is not protected from

being sent to a country where he would be in such danger (Chapter 8,

Section 1).

      When a refusal of entry or an expulsion order is put into effect,

the alien may not be sent to a country where he would risk being

persecuted, or to a country where he would not be protected from being

sent on to a country where he would risk being persecuted (Chapter 8,

Section 2, subsection 1). An alien may, however, be sent to such a

country if he cannot be sent to any other and if he has shown, by

committing a particular offence, that public order and safety would be

seriously endangered by his being allowed to remain in Sweden. However,

this does not apply if the threatened persecution in the receiving

state implies danger to his life or is otherwise of a particularly

grave nature. Similarly, the alien may be sent to a country referred

to in subsection 1 if he has engaged in activities endangering the

national security of Sweden and if there is reason to suppose that he

would continue to engage in such activities in Sweden and he cannot be

sent to any other country (subsection 2).

      If the enforcement is not subject to any obstacles under, inter

alia, Chapter 8, Sections 1 and 2, an alien who has been refused entry

or who is to be expelled is to be sent to his country of origin or, if

possible, to the country from which he came to Sweden. If the decision

cannot be put into effect in the manner indicated in subsection 1, or

there are other special grounds for doing so, the alien may be sent to

some other country instead (Chapter 8, Section 5).

      When considering a request for a residence permit lodged by an

alien to be expelled according to a decision which has acquired legal

force, the National Board of Immigration (and in certain cases the

Government too) may stay execution of that decision. For particular

reasons, the Board may also otherwise stay execution (Chapter 8,

Section 10).

      If the enforcing authority finds that enforcement cannot be

carried out or that further information is needed, the authority is to

notify the National Board of Immigration accordingly. In such a case,

the Board may decide on the question of enforcement or take such other

measures as are necessary (Chapter 8, Section 13).

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains that her expulsion to Iran would violate

Article 3 of the Convention. She claims that she risks persecution, if

not execution, on account of her own, as well as her father's,

political activities in the Mujahedin movement. She further refers to

her conversion and alleges that Muslims who have converted to the

Christian faith no longer enjoy the protection of the law in Iran and

may be killed there.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 5 May 1993 and registered on

6 May 1993. On 6 May 1993 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.

The Commission further decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of its Rules of

Procedure, that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and

the proper conduct of the proceedings not to return the applicant to

Iran until 9 July 1993.

      The Government's observations were submitted on 4 June 1993, to

which the applicant replied on 8 July 1993.

      On 9 July 1993 the Commission decided to prolong its indication

under Rule 36 until 10 September 1993.

THE LAW

      The applicant complains that, if returned to Iran, she risks

persecution and even execution in view of her political activities

there and her conversion to Christianity. She invokes Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention, which reads as follows:

      "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or

      degrading treatment or punishment."

      The Government contend that the applicant's request for a

residence permit on the basis of her statements in the media has not

yet been examined by the National Immigration Board. Accordingly,

domestic remedies have not been exhausted. However, regardless of this,

the application is, in any event, manifestly ill-founded, as the

applicant is not wanted by the Iranian authorities and no substantial

grounds have been shown for believing that she would be subjected to

treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention if returned

to Iran.

      The Government state that they are aware of the substantial risks

run by Mujahedin activists of being ill-treated and executed if

arrested in Iran. The applicant's father, however,  left Iran for Iraq

more than five years before she did. She can therefore scarcely be

considered a political refugee on account of his activities. There is

no indication that the applicant tried to leave Iran during those five

years, although it is well known that many members of the Mujahedin

have fled to Iraq in order to continue their struggle against the

Iranian Government.

      As far the applicant's own purported membership of the Mujahedin

is concerned, the Government consider her account unsubstantiated. The

same conclusion was reached by the Aliens' Appeals Board after having

heard her in person. Her credibility is questionable given, for

example, her admission that her first account of her journey to Sweden

was false, and given her subsequent refusal to reveal how she entered

Sweden. The alleged arrest following her violation of the Muslim dress

code and her possession of forbidden literature are also not credible.

Such conduct by a member of the Mujahedin is highly unlikely. Moreover,

her account of the events in connection with that arrest has not been

consistent. For instance, she has not explained why, if she was

suspected of being a member of the Mujahedin, she was released from

detention.

      The Government stress that the applicant's lack of credibility

as regards her background in Iran also affects her purported conversion

to the Christian faith. Admittedly, a convert from Islam might be

severely punished if the authorities are informed about the conversion.

However, the Government have been informed that, if the convert

explains that the conversion took place for non-religious reasons, e.g.

in order to obtain a residence permit, and if he or she converts back

to Islam, no penalty might be imposed. Moreover, an increasing number

of Iranian asylum seekers in Sweden are converting to the Christian

faith.

      The Government finally point out that Chapter 8, Section 1, of

the Aliens Act, regarding the enforcement of an expulsion order,

reflects almost exactly the principles outlined by the European Court

of Human Rights when applying Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention to

expulsion or extradition cases.

      The applicant contends that her father's activities in Iraq are

known to the Iranian authorities. When arrested she was questioned

about those activities. As to her own arrest, she believes it to have

taken place partly because of her conduct in public and partly because

of her suspected collaboration with the Mujahedin. She was released in

the absence of evidence.

      Concerning her conversion, the applicant states that she is

determined to stay a Christian and that her conversion has been deemed

credible by her priest. Moreover, she has twice been interviewed on

Swedish radio. In this context she has spoken about her political

background and her conversion. In a newspaper interview she has further

stated that she hates Islam. She has lodged a new request for a

residence permit referring to these new circumstances.

      The Commission considers that it is not necessary to examine

whether or not the applicant has exhausted domestic remedies in

accordance with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention since the

application is, in any event, inadmissible for the reasons set out

below.

      The Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right to

control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to

political asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its

Protocols (Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of

30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102). However,

expulsion by a Contracting State of an asylum seeker may give rise to

an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and hence engage

the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substan-

tial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned

would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he is to be

expelled (ibid., para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-treatment is not

in itself sufficient (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).

      The Commission shares the Government's considerable doubts as to

the credibility of the applicant's story. The Commission notes, in

particular, that following her father's escape from an Iranian prison

the applicant continued to live in Iran. Moreover, she has not told her

own family about her conversion to the Christian faith, not even her

sister in Sweden.

      The Commission also attaches importance to the fact that the

Swedish authorities appear to have gained considerable experience in

evaluating claims of the present nature by virtue of the large number

of Iranian asylum seekers in Sweden. It notes that residence permits

have in fact been granted in numerous cases and that the authorities

are obliged to consider essentially the same factors as are relevant

to the Convention organs' assessment under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention. The decision to expel the applicant was made after careful

examination of her case (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Cruz Varas and Others

judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31, para. 81; No.

20981/93, P. v. Sweden, Dec. 8.4.93, unpublished).

      The Commission observes, in particular, that Chapter 8, Section

1, of the Aliens Act also imposes an absolute obligation on the

enforcement authority in Sweden to refrain from expelling an alien

should the human rights situation in the receiving country constitute

a firm reason to believe that he would be in danger of being subjected

to capital or corporal punishment, or torture, in that country.

      The Commission concludes, on the evidence before it concerning

the applicant's background and the general situation in Iran, that it

has not been established that there are substantial grounds for

believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of being

subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

if returned to Iran.

      It follows that the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission

           (M. de SALVIA)                         (C.A. NORGAARD)