AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 16578/03
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 26 October 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr M. Pellonpää,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Mr J. Borrego Borrego,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr D. Spielmann, judges,
and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2003,
Having regard to the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant is a Libyan national who was born in 1968. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Odén, a lawyer practising in Gothenburg. The respondent Government were represented by Ms I. Kalmerborn, Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant arrived in Sweden on 13 May 2001 and applied for asylum on 28 May 2001.
An initial interview with the applicant was conducted by the Migration Board (Migrationsverket) on 30 May 2001. At that interview the applicant stated, inter alia, that he had travelled to Sweden with a false passport which he had obtained through a friend of his father's who worked at the Libyan passport authority. As agreed with that person, he had sent back the false passport after having entered Sweden. His own genuine passport remained in Libya with his parents. Asked about his professional background, the applicant responded that he was an architect by profession and had been employed by the state for seven years at “the People's Committee for the educational sector in the district of al-Zawiyah”. However, he had stopped working in mid-January 2001. The applicant stated that disturbances had erupted in al-Zawiyah at the end of the year 2000. He had openly participated in the protests against the presence of (sub-Saharan) Africans in the country, mainly by distributing leaflets. In January 2001 he had been arrested by the security office in al-Zawiyah and accused of participating in the uprising against the Africans. On this occasion he had been questioned and held in detention for four days. Following the interview, the record of it was read out to the applicant who declared that it was correct and that he had understood the interpreter well.
A second interview was held by the Migration Board on 21 March 2002. On this occasion the applicant was heard, inter alia, about the contents of three documents which he had received from Libya after his arrival in Sweden and submitted to the Board on 6 August 2001: (1) a birth certificate, (2) an international driver's licence issued in Libya on 15 May 2001 after he had left for Sweden, and (3) a document showing that he had completed his national military service. Asked about his passport, the applicant stated that it was impossible for him to obtain it as it was held by the security service which had taken it at the end of October 2000 “for reasons identical to his grounds for seeking asylum”.
Describing his activities during the disturbances in his hometown, the applicant stated that he had participated by writing and distributing leaflets, encouraging people to force the Government to resign. In the leaflets, he had mentioned that, since coming to power in 1969, Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi had treated the applicant's clan harshly. The clan had been politically influential before 1969. The uprising had lasted for 2-3 weeks in September 2000 and most of those living in al-Zawiyah had taken part. The security services had been sent to al-Zawiyah to deal with the problem. They had first targeted the applicant's clan. They had had no information regarding the names of the persons who had participated but had acted arbitrarily and arrested a large number of young men. In October 2000 the applicant had been arrested by the security service at his work place and held in detention for four days awaiting a hearing concerning his detention. On the fourth day the persons in charge of his interrogation had released him pending further questioning. Upon his release, the applicant had gone to Sabrata, a small town west of al-Zawiyah, where he had stayed in hiding with a friend for six to eight months before leaving for Sweden. Throughout this period he had been searched for by the security service.
Asked about what would happen to him if returned to Libya, the applicant first stated that it was difficult to say exactly but that he would consider himself fortunate if he were given life imprisonment. Slightly later during the interview, however, he stated that the media had reported that death sentences had been handed down against the leaders of the revolt and that his own name had been among those that had been mentioned. He also asserted that a friend in Libya had informed him that he had been sentenced to death in absentia. According to the applicant, this type of judgment was not issued by a court but by a kind of popular conference entitled Al-Moétamarat Al-Shaébia. No appeal lay against it. The applicant further stated that it was possible that news about his sentence could have been published in either of two named government-controlled Libyan newspapers.
The applicant declared that he had understood the interpreter well. The record of the second interview further stated that it had been read out to the applicant who had approved it.
In written observations submitted to the Migration Board on 16 April 2002, the applicant's counsel, who had not been present at the interviews, stated that the record of the second interview had not been read out to the applicant or approved by him. Counsel further mentioned that, while in hiding in Sabrata, the applicant had been unable to communicate with his parents by telephone. Instead, the friend who had been hiding him had visited the parents a couple of times and had then received information and the applicant's allegedly false passport.
The Migration Board noted that in March 2001 the Swedish General Consulate in Tripoli had received an application for an entry visa in the applicant's name, which contained a copy of a passport in the same name. The application had been rejected.
On 5 August 2002, in reply to this information, the applicant's counsel noted that the copy of the passport was a copy of the same, allegedly false, passport the applicant had used to enter Sweden. The name, address and place of birth were correct in the application. The applicant had not made the visa application himself and therefore assumed that it must have been made by the head of the passport authority, who was the person who had issued the false passport and had made the arrangements for the applicant's journey to Sweden. The applicant was now in a position to name this person, as he had, for unknown reasons, left his position at the passport authority. Counsel further stated that the applicant's brother had sought to obtain a copy of the newspaper in which the applicant's death sentence had been reported but the brother's motives had been questioned and he had failed to obtained the copy due to fear.
On 25 October 2002 the Migration Board rejected the applicant's request for asylum and ordered that he should be expelled from Sweden. It considered it remarkable that the applicant had been able to leave detention unconditionally, without for example any obligation to report or to put up bail. Moreover, it found that the fact that the applicant had remained in the country for several months after his release indicated that he did not perceive his need for protection as pressing. It also found it remarkable that he had been able to leave the country with a passport that he had acknowledged contained correct personal data, especially since he alleged that the Libyan authorities were searching for him. Against this background, the Migration Board found that the applicant's involvement in the riots as well as the possible consequences thereof were exaggerated.
On 29 November 2002 the applicant appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden). On 9 January 2003 he submitted what he stated was a copy of a document which his brother had been able to obtain “via an acquaintance with contacts in the congress”. The document had been sent to an acquaintance in England who, in turn, had sent it to the applicant by fax. Issued by the People's Committee in al-Zawiyah on 28 May 2001, it called for the search and arrest by the security service of four named persons, including the applicant. It stated that a decision had been taken that the four persons should be executed on account of acts committed against the security of the state. While the applicant did not at this stage specifically claim that this document was a “judgment” issued by the People's Committee, he asserted that it unambiguously demonstrated that he had been sentenced to death in Libya and was being sought for execution of the judgment.
On 29 April 2003 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the applicant's appeal. It noted that there had been violent riots in September 2000 resulting in the death of many of its participants. Most of the people accused of involvement in the riots had been sentenced to death. It considered that the applicant had not shown that he would risk the death penalty upon return to Libya. If he had been of interest to the Libyan authorities he would not have been able to leave the country the way he claimed. Even having regard to the alleged copy of the judgment, the Aliens Appeals Board found reasons to question that he was of any particular interest to Libyan authorities. He had, thus, not shown that he was in need of protection.
In June 2003 the applicant filed a new application for a residence permit with the Aliens Appeals Board, arguing that the previous decisions had been based on misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistrust. He provided further details regarding the circumstances surrounding his arrest and subsequent escape from Libya. He thus stated, inter alia, that he had been one in a group of seven persons who had cooperated in writing and distributing leaflets in order to demonstrate their discontent with the regime. However, the security services had begun a campaign of arrests, torture and detentions without trial. One in their group had been arrested and, before being executed, had been forced under torture to reveal the identity of the others. When learning of the arrest the other members of the group had tried to hide or escape, but the applicant and two others had been arrested. He had been held in detention for four days at a local police station but had eventually been able to bribe a police officer to let him escape. He had paid the officer the equivalent of 3000 US dollars and had handed over his genuine passport. He had thereafter hid in another town for seven months. By bribing the head of the passport authority his family had been able to obtain a false passport for him. This passport was in fact a “real” and new passport but it was not “registered with the passport authority” and did not contain a bar code used for computer control or his “real name”. The passport also erroneously stated that he was married. The same person had arranged all other details regarding his journey, including his application for a visa and his ticket.
The applicant further stated that during the time when he was in hiding in Libya the authorities had sent summonses for his appearance to his home, to the office where he worked and to the engineers' labour union of which he was a member. When this had not succeeded the authorities had tried to put pressure on his family. His father had been arrested and detained for three days, like his brothers who had been tortured to disclose his whereabouts. To avoid exposing his relatives to further torture, he had decided to escape abroad. However, after his arrival in Sweden his youngest brother had been imprisoned and had informed the authorities that the applicant was living in Sweden. The applicant also stated that he had stayed in Libya for several months before leaving as the journey had required careful preparation. After a period of time in Sweden the applicant had learned that he and three others in his group had been sentenced to death and that orders had been issued to all police units to arrest and execute them. Several attempts had been made to obtain this judgment. His brothers had finally managed to get in touch with “someone who has the key to the cupboard where the judgments are kept”. By bribing this person with 1000 dinars they had managed to obtain a copy of the judgment. The applicant claimed that two of the persons in his group had been granted asylum in the United Kingdom and in Canada.
In support of his new application the applicant submitted what he claimed were copies of three summonses for him to appear for questioning issued by the Libyan authorities in October and November 2000 and May 2001, respectively.
On 4 September 2003 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the new application stating that it contained no new circumstances which would give reasons to change its previous assessment. The new documents, which were copies, were not of such a character as to influence the assessment of the applicant's need for protection.
The immigration authorities have contacted the Libyan Embassy in Stockholm in order to obtain travel documents for the purpose of enforcing the expulsion order against the applicant.
By a decision of 21 October 2003, following the Court's indication under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the Migration Board stayed the enforcement of the applicant's expulsion until further notice.
On 19 November 2003 the applicant submitted to the Court copies of documents purportedly issued by Libyan authorities. One document, dated 3 June 2001, is a communication from “the Secretary to the People's Committee of the Congress” in old Zawia to “the Secretary to the People's Committee for Justice and General Security”, in which the latter is requested to agree to the notification of all airports, seaports and border-controls to prevent five named individuals, among them the applicant and a Mr Hasan Ahmed El Amouri, from leaving Libya. Another document, dated 18 June 2001, is a communication from the first-mentioned official to “the Secretary to the Office for Communications Abroad”, informing the recipient that four individuals mentioned in the first document, including the applicant but not Mr El Amouri, had fled the country and calling for their capture and return to Libya by the external security organs. A third document records a decision of 27 May 2001 to detain the applicant's younger brother for failure to disclose the applicant's whereabouts. Another document contains a summons for the applicant's father to appear on 20 June 2001 for questioning in relation to the applicant's escape from Libya.
The applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention that, upon return to Libya, he would risk execution due to his involvement in the disturbances in al-Zawiyah.
The applicant claimed that, upon return to Libya, he would risk treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention. These provisions read as follows:
Article 2 of the Convention:
“1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”
Article 3 of the Convention:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 1 of Protocol No. 6:
“The death penalty shall be abolished. No-one shall be condemned to such penalty or executed.”
The respondent Government, which addressed the applicant's complaint under all three Articles together, maintained that the application should be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. While acknowledging that Libya was reported as being a serious abuser of human rights and that large-scale attacks against sub-Saharan Africans occurred in Libya, including al-Zawiyah, in September 2000, following which many participants were committed for trial and some sentenced to death, they asserted that the applicant would not be personally at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the above-mentioned Articles.
The Government observed that, in the course of the domestic proceedings, the applicant had made several inconsistent statements which were of such a nature as to raise serious doubts as to the veracity of his claims. Thus, during the first asylum interview he had claimed that he had been arrested in January 2001 whereas during the second interview he had stated that the arrest occurred in October 2000. Moreover, he had first stated that he had been released from detention “pending further questioning” and had then, after the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeals Board had questioned the veracity of this assertion, amended his version of events and stated that his release had been obtained upon payment of a bribe of 3000 US dollars. The applicant had also given contradictory information about his “genuine” passport, during the first interview claiming that it remained with his parents and during the second interview stating that it had been taken by the Libyan security service. The Government further submitted that the statements given by the applicant before the domestic authorities and the Court revealed the existence of a pattern whereby the applicant for each stage of the proceedings had made additional assertions regarding the circumstances of his arrest and the mistreatment to which he and members of his family had allegedly been subjected. Likewise, it was only in his second application for a residence permit that the applicant had asserted that summonses for his appearance for questioning had been issued by the Libyan authorities while he was still in hiding in that country and that members of his family had been arrested and tortured during that period. Before the Court, the applicant has claimed that he had been subjected to torture and death-threats during his detention in Libya. No such assertion had been made by him in the domestic proceedings. In the Government's opinion, the applicant had provided no explanation for his failures to provide relevant information at an early stage of the proceedings.
Turning to the Libyan documents relied on by the applicant, the Government observed that several of them purported to be internal communications between different parts of the Libyan administration. While the applicant had provided no information on how he had been able to gain access to the documents submitted to the Court on 19 November 2003, his explanation how the judgment of the People's Committee of 28 May 2001 had come into his possession could hardly be considered as satisfactory. The Government further noted that the documents submitted to the Court had all been issued between May and July 2001 and that the applicant had provided no reason for his failure to submit them during the domestic proceedings.
The Government further submitted that, in response to their request in November 2003, an “unofficial” inquiry into the applicant's circumstances had been carried out by the Swedish Consul-General in Tripoli with the assistance of, inter alia, the Consulate's attorney. This inquiry had revealed that the applicant was not registered in Libyan records as having committed any criminal offence nor had he ever been deprived of his liberty. Furthermore, the allegedly false passport used for the applicant's travel to Sweden was in fact genuine. In the course of the inquiry the Consulate had also obtained original documents which demonstrated that the applicant, prior to his departure from Libya, had applied for and been granted a leave of absence from his work. The decision, covering a period of two months, had been made on 7 May 2001. The applicant had left Libya immediately thereafter and had later, from abroad, made an application for a 30-day extension of his leave. When he had not returned within the time specified his employment had been terminated. The Government submitted copies of the documents obtained by the Consulate and stated that, according to the report of the Consul-General, it would not have been possible for the applicant to be granted such a leave if he had been wanted by the security services. The report also set out a number of indications which, in the Consul-General's opinion, showed that the documents relied on by the applicant were false.
Moreover, the Government submitted that, in February 2004, they had been informed that, in support of an asylum application lodged by a Mr Hassan Ahmed Alammouri, a document dated 25 December 2001 had been submitted. Except for the date and the reference number this document was identical to the document dated 3 June 2001 and submitted by the applicant to the Court. The two documents appeared to bear identical stamps and signatures which were affixed in the same position. The Government asserted that the existence of the two documents raised serious questions concerning their authenticity.
In conclusion, the Government maintained that the information provided by the applicant regarding his arrest and subsequent death sentence was incorrect and that the documents which he had adduced in support of his claims were false.
The applicant submitted that he had exercised his civil right of speech during the disturbance in al-Zawiyah. On account of that he had been arrested in October 2000. He claimed to have been tortured during the four days he was held in detention. As it had been painful for him to talk about this ill-treatment, he had not mentioned it previously. He also stated that he had originally given the wrong month for his arrest due to the fact that the Libyan months were different from European months and as he had had some difficulties to understand the interpreter at the first asylum interview. In general, he asserted that he had not mentioned every detail at that interview, as he had not been asked to develop his arguments and as he had not been assisted by a lawyer at that time and therefore did not know what was required of him in this respect.
Following his release from detention, the applicant had had to flee for his life. He had not been able to contact his family or friends due to the risk of being caught and exposing his family to danger. Even in Sweden he had not been able to contact his family more than on rare occasions. This was the reason why he had not received information in the beginning about the bribe they had paid to the police officer. He had been told by the officer that he was released pending further questioning and, believing this to be correct, he had given this information to the Swedish authorities. Furthermore, he had been told by his family only after he had been in Sweden for some time that his passport had been handed over to the police. Likewise, due to the risks involved, he could not receive any documents from his family members while he was still in Libya. It had also been very dangerous for them to send letters from Libya due to censorship. They had had to go to another country to do so. It was therefore not strange that documents and information had not been sent to him immediately. The applicant also stated that, while one had to be very careful about whom to talk to and trust in a country like Libya, it was always possible to bribe the right persons. That is how the applicant's brother had been able to obtain internal documents from the Libyan administration.
In regard to the “unofficial inquiry” conducted by the Swedish Consulate in Tripoli, the applicant noted that the Government had not presented its report and stated that no grounds had been specified for the conclusion that the documents were false. Moreover, he was not surprised that persons contacted by the Consulate had stated that he had not been registered as having committed any crime and could safely return to Libya, as the Libyan administration and the security service would go far to secure his return to the country in order to execute him. He also asserted that the documents concerning his leave of absence from work were false and rather provided evidence of the Libyan authorities' efforts to get him back to Libya. He had not made any application for a leave of absence and his signatures on the documents were not genuine. Moreover, the alleged applications did not comply with relevant formalities and, in any event, the applicant would not have been able to apply for an extension from abroad.
The applicant further claimed that the document submitted by Mr Alammouri, whom the applicant did not know, was false. This was shown by the fact that Mr Alammouri's document lacked dots under the reference number which were present on the applicant's original document.
The applicant asserted that the documents he had submitted to the Swedish authorities and to the Court were genuine and had been obtained with great risks involved for the people who had obtained them. He maintained that the documents clearly showed that he would be ill-treated and executed upon return to Libya, in violation of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention.
The Court observes at the outset that Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. However, the expulsion of an alien by a Contracting State may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person in question, if deported, would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 in the receiving country. In these circumstances, Article 3 implies the obligation not to deport the person in question to that country (see, among other authorities, H.L.R. v. France, judgment of 29 April 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-III, p. 757, §§ 3334).
Moreover, the Court does not exclude that analogous considerations might apply to Article 2 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention where the return of an alien puts his or her life in danger, as a result of the imposition of the death penalty or otherwise (see, e.g., Bahaddar v. the Netherlands, judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-I, opinion of the Commission, p. 270-71, §§ 75-78, and Sinnarajah v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 45187/99, 11 May 1999, unreported).
The Court finds that the applicant's complaints under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 are indissociable. They will therefore be examined together.
The Court is aware of the occurence of reports of serious human rights violations in Libya and notes that it is well-established that the disturbances in al-Zawiyah, to which the applicant has referred, did take place in the autumn of 2000 and that many participants were committed for trial and some received death sentences. However, the Court has to establish whether the applicant's personal situation is such that his return to Libya would contravene the Articles relied on by him. The applicant has alleged that he took active part in the disturbances in al-Zawiyah and that he has subsequently been sentenced to death by Libyan authorities. In examining this allegation, it is of importance to assess the appearance of the various Libyan documents relied on by the applicant and his general credibility, having regard to the statements made by him before the Swedish authorities and during the present proceedings.
The Court reiterates that the Libyan documents submitted by the applicant purports to show (1) that the applicant was summoned by Libyan authorities to appear for questioning in October and November 2000 and May 2001, (2) that the People's Committee on 28 May 2001 had called for his search and arrest as he was to be executed on account of acts committed against the security of the state, (3) that “the Secretary to the People's Committee of the Congress” in old Zawia on 3 June 2001 had called for all border controls to prevent the applicant from leaving Libya and on 18 June 2001, noting that the applicant had fled abroad, had called for his capture and return to the country, and (4) that his brother had been detained on 27 May 2001 and his father summoned to appear for questioning on 20 June 2001 in relation to the applicant's escape.
The Government assert that the documents in question are false, whereas the applicant maintains that they are genuine documents supporting his claim that he will be executed upon return to Libya. While there is some uncertainty as to whether some authorities named in the documents had jurisdiction in the matter, their general appearance is not such that they, in and of themselves, can be discounted as falsifications. However, in assessing their authenticity, the circumstances surrounding their submission are of importance. In this respect, the Court notes that they were all submitted to the Swedish authorities and the Court long after their date of issuance. The documents mentioned under (1) were submitted in June 2003 in support of the applicant's new application for a residence permit, thus more than two years after their date of issuance. Moreover, the document mentioned under (2), stating that the applicant had been sentenced to death, is dated 28 May 2001 but was submitted to the Aliens Appeals Board only on 9 January 2003, more than one and a half year later. Similarly, the documents indicated under (3) and (4) were not submitted during the domestic proceedings but only to the Court on 19 November 2003, again more than two years after their date of issuance.
While the Court appreciates the difficulty in obtaining such documents in Libya and to send them abroad, it notes that some of them were purportedly issued when the applicant was still in Libya and generally considers that the delays in submitting the documents are rather remarkable. As an explanation for these delays, the applicant has, inter alia, claimed before the Court that he was unable to contact his family while he was in hiding with his friend in Sabrata and that he has had contact with members of his family only on rare occasions even during his stay in Sweden. However, this assertion is difficult to reconcile with the statement given by his counsel to the Migration Board on 16 April 2002 that his friend had visited the applicant's parents a couple of times and had then received information and the applicant's allegedly false passport. The Court further notes that the documents in question have been submitted by the applicant at different stages of the proceedings, following the rejection of his applications by the Migration Board and the Aliens Appeals Board.
The Court also notes that the applicant has changed his story on many occasions during the domestic proceedings. While the differing dates given for his arrest and detention can possibly be explained by a misunderstanding relating to the difference between Libyan and European months, the Court finds it remarkable that the applicant, at the time of the first asylum interview, would not have known about bribes paid by his family to the police officer to secure his release from detention or the surrender of his genuine passport to that officer. This information was given to the Swedish authorities only in June 2003 when the applicant lodged his second application for a residence permit. If these events actually occurred, it appears reasonable to assume that the applicant would have received information thereof on the occasion of his friend's visits to his parents when he was still in Libya or later when he was in contact with his family following his arrival in Sweden. Likewise, the applicant's allegation that he was tortured during his detention was not made to the Swedish authorities but only to the Court. While acknowledging that it cannot be expected that asylum-seekers, in all circumstances, give completely accurate and consistent statements, the Court still finds it striking that the applicant failed to give information that would have been of vital importance for the examination of his request for asylum. In this connection, the Court further notes that the applicant, at both interviews conducted by the Migration Board, declared that he had understood the interpreter well.
The Court has further regard to the information obtained by the Government during their inquiry into the applicant's circumstances, inter alia documents according to which the applicant applied for and was granted a leave of absence from his work at about the time when he left Libya. While the parties disagree on the authenticity of these documents, the Court finds that they give further reason to question the veracity of the applicant's statements.
Having regard to the above, the Court considers that there are strong reasons to call into question the veracity of the applicant's statements and the authenticity of the documents relied on by him. It finds that he has not offered sufficient and reliable explanations for the delays in submitting the documents in question or for the partly incomplete and inconsistent statements given by him to the Swedish authorities and the Court at different stages of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court finds that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that, upon return to Libya, the applicant faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 6 to the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Declares the application inadmissible.
Michael O'Boyle Nicolas Bratza
B. v. SWEDEN DECISION
B. v. SWEDEN DECISION