When Swedish authorities decided to uphold a deportation order against a person who risks torture in their home country due to their sexual orientation, legal representative Anastasia Martin and her Kliently colleague Mobin Mushehid acted immediately.
They chose to file a complaint against the Swedish state and brought the case before the United Nations Committee Against Torture (CAT) — successfully halting the deportation.
“There has been no proper assessment of the highly specific circumstances in this case. By bringing the matter to the UN Committee Against Torture, we are not only protecting our client’s life and rights — we are also holding Sweden accountable for its international obligations,” says Anastasia Martin, migration lawyer at Kliently.
The case concerns a violation of Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The UN has now instructed Sweden to respond to the Committee — a response the state must submit within six months.
When can a complaint be filed with CAT?
CAT is the UN’s monitoring body tasked with reviewing states’ compliance with the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The Committee accepts individual complaints from people who risk torture in connection with deportation or extradition.
A complaint can be submitted to CAT when:
- All domestic remedies in Sweden have been exhausted — for example, when a deportation order can no longer be appealed.
- The case is not being examined by another international body.
- There are substantial grounds for believing that the person would face a risk of torture in the country of return.
If CAT decides to examine the case, the person can no longer be deported, usually until the Committee issues its final decision.
“Bringing the case before CAT means that the state’s decision is reviewed by an international legal body. It gives our client a chance to seek redress when national remedies are insufficient — and sends a clear message that Sweden cannot avoid scrutiny when human rights are at stake,” says Mobin Mushehid, legal counsel at Kliently.