Information Note on the Court’s case-law 188

August-September 2015

R.H. v. Sweden - 4601/14

Judgment 10.9.2015 [Section V]

Article 3

Expulsion

Proposed deportation of young Somali woman to Mogadishu (Somalia): deportation would not constitute a violation

Facts – In 2011 the applicant, a young Somali woman from Mogadishu, sought asylum in Sweden having stayed there illegally for four years after a rriving from Italy via the Netherlands. At an interview in January 2013 the applicant stated, for the first time, that she had fled Somalia with her boyfriend after being forcibly married to an older man and subsequently beaten and thrown off a truck by he r uncles when the relationship with her boyfriend was discovered. Her boyfriend and parents had since died and she claimed that if she was returned to Somalia she would have to go back to the man she had been forced to marry and risked being killed by her uncles. Since she lacked a male support network in Somalia she was also at risk of sexual assault and of becoming a social outcast. The Migration Board rejected her asylum application in June 2013 and ordered her deportation to Somalia after finding that h er statements lacked credibility. It noted that she had stayed in Sweden illegally for four years before contacting the immigration authorities and had previously lodged asylum applications in Italy and the Netherlands. In addition, she had initially claim ed she had left Somalia because of the war before changing her story to allege that she had fled to escape a forced marriage and risked ill-treatment by her family on her return. The applicant subsequently submitted a petition to have the enforcement of he r deportation order stopped, claiming that her uncles had joined the jihadist terrorist group al-Shabaab, forcing her brother to also join the group and killing her sister. The Migration Board rejected her petition in September 2013.

Law – Article 3: In th e Court’s view, it was clear that, if deported from Sweden, the applicant would be sent to Mogadishu and there was no risk that she would have to transit through or end up in other parts of Somalia. The Court had concluded in K.A.B. v. Sweden that the gene ral situation in Mogadishu at that time (September 2013) was not such that returns to that city would breach Article 3. While it was clear that the general security situation there remained serious and fragile, the available sources did not indicate a dete rioration since September 2013.

However, unlike the applicant in K.A.B. v. Sweden (a male born in 1960), the applicant in the instant case was a young woman who had been living abroad for almost ten years after leaving Somalia at the age of 17. Various rep orts attested to the difficult situation of women in Somalia, including in Mogadishu. Women and girls had been identified as a particular risk group and there were several concordant reports of serious and widespread sexual and gender-based violence in the country. From these materials it could be concluded that a single woman returning to Mogadishu without access to protection from a male network would face a real risk of living in conditions constituting inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3.

How ever, while not overlooking the difficult situation of women in Somalia, including Mogadishu, the Court could not find on the particular facts of the applicant’s case that she would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned to that ci ty. There had been significant inconsistencies in her submissions and the claims concerning her personal experiences and the dangers she faced upon a return had not been plausible. There was no basis for finding that she would return to Mogadishu as a lone woman with the risks that such a situation entailed. Instead, she had to be considered to have access to both family support and a male protection network. Nor had it been shown that she would have to resort to living in a camp for refugees and displaced persons. Accordingly, her deportation to Mogadishu would not involve a violation of Article 3.

Conclusion : deportation would not constitute a violation (five votes to two).

(See K.A.B. v. Sweden [GC], 886/11, 5 September 2013, Information Note 166 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes