Bylos santrauka

J.K. ir kiti prieš Švediją


Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismas
2016 m. rugpjūčio 23 d.

Facts

The applicants, a married couple and their son, were Iraqi nationals and applied for international protection in Sweden. The reason for the application was threat to their lives by al-Qaeda, due to the husband’s business cooperation with Americans. The Swedish Migration Agency rejected the application, finding it unlikely that any possible threats against the applicants were still present, as the first applicant confirmed that he had not received any personal threats from al-Qaeda since 2008. The Agency also found that the Iraqi authorities have the capacity to protect the family from persecution. Having been refused asylum, the applicants stated that al-Qaeda had also come looking for the first applicant on 10 September 2011 at their house in Baghdad and had burned down their house on 12 November 2011. The Migration Agency did not find the applicants’ statements or the documents submitted on these points to be credible.

Complaint

The applicants alleged that their removal to Iraq would entail a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of torture).

Court’s ruling

The Court first reiterated that owing to the special situation in which asylum-seekers often find themselves, it is necessary to give them the benefit of the doubt when assessing the credibility of their statements, yet when there are strong reasons to question the credibility, the asylum-seeker must provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged inaccuracies. The Court noted that even if the applicant’s account of some details may appear somewhat implausible, this does not necessarily detract from the overall general credibility of the applicant’s claim. The Court found that the cumulative effect of the applicants’ personal circumstances, particularly their past persecution, and the Iraqi authorities’ diminished ability to protect them, must be considered to create a real risk of ill-treatment in the event of their return to Iraq. The Court ruled that the deportation would entail a violation of Article 3.