Afghanistan

The Committee considered that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan, in particular taking into account his father’s alleged threats of revenge and his trauma as a result of parental abuse. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in Afghanistan and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.

30 April 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Human rights law | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes the finding of the Migration Agency that, while claiming a risk of harm in Afghanistan because of his Christian faith, the author failed to present sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim that his faith had attracted the attention of: the Afghan authorities through his texts on social media networks and his appearance in the Swedish media; the staff members of the Afghan Embassy in Stockholm; and other Afghan detainees in the migration detention centre. The Committee also finds that although the author contests the assessment and findings of the Swedish authorities, he has not presented any evidence to the Committee to substantiate his claim that he has been targeted by the Afghan authorities on the basis of his Christianity, or that his alleged Christianity is indeed known to the Afghan authorities. 7.7 The Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available when evaluating the risk of irreparable harm faced by the author upon his return to Afghanistan. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has not shown that the Migration Agency’s decision of 30 December 2015 was arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or that it amounted to a denial of justice.

22 May 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Christian - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

20 February 2020 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Atheist / Agnostic - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement - Religious persecution (including forced conversion) - Right to life | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk if he were returned to Afghanistan, which is based not solely on his profile as a former employee of the international forces but also on the risk of future ill-treatment by the Taliban which reasonably follows from his individual circumstances including his past ill-treatment in his country of origin.

18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Combatants / Former combatants - Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Afghanistan - Denmark

asylum seekers’ detention is arbitrary and contrary to their right to liberty if the State fails to demonstrate on an individual basis that their continuous indefinite detention is justified, and that other, less intrusive, measures could not achieve the same end of compliance with the State’s need to respond to security concerns. In addition, the HRC considers that the combination of the arbitrary character and indefinite nature of the authors’ protracted detention, the absence of procedural guarantees to challenge the detention and the difficult conditions of detention, cumulatively inflict serious psychological harm that amount to “cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment” under the ICCPR.

2 May 2016 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Legal Instrument: 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) | Topic(s): Arbitrary arrest and detention - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Immigration Detention | Countries: Afghanistan - Australia - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Sri Lanka

7 September 2015 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - Right to life - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Afghanistan - Denmark

26 November 2014 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Topic(s): Children's rights - Deportation / Forcible return - Effective remedy - Expulsion - Right to family life | Countries: Afghanistan - Denmark