CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

GE.24-13697 (E) 230824 260824

Human Rights Committee

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional

Protocol, concerning communication No. 3307/2019*, **

Communication submitted by:

C (represented by counsel, Anna Massarsch)

Alleged victims:

C, D, E and F

State party:

Sweden

Date of communication:

6 December 2016 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decisions taken pursuant to rules 92 and 94 of

the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted

to the State party on 22 February 2019 (not

issued in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

19 July 2024

Subject matter:

Deportation to Albania with alleged risk of

persecution by State and non-State actors

Procedural issues:

Ratione materiae; substantiation

Substantive issues:

Effective remedy; cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment; fair trial;

non-refoulement; refugees; torture

Articles of the Covenant:

2 (1) and (3), 7 and 14 (1)

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 3

1.1

The author of the communication is C, a national of Albania born in 1985. He submits

the communication in his own name and on behalf of his wife, D, born in 1989, and their two

minor daughters, E and F, born in 2014 and 2017, respectively. They are also nationals of

Albania. The author submits that, by deporting the family to Albania, the State party would

violate their rights under articles 2 (1) and (3), 7 and 14 (1) of the Covenant. C, D, E and F

are represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Sweden on 23 March

1976.

1.2

On 22 February 2019, pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure, the Committee,

acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures,

requested the State party to refrain from deporting the author, D, E and F to Albania while

* Adopted by the Committee at its 141st session (1–23 July 2024).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders,

Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos Gómez Martínez, Laurence R. Helfer, Marcia V.J. Kran, Bacre Waly

Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, José Manuel Santos Pais, Soh Changrok, Tijana Šurlan, Kobauyah

Tchamdja Kpatcha, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.

United Nations

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

26 August 2024

Original: English

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

2

GE.24-13697

their case was under consideration by the Committee. The author and his family remain in

Sweden.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

On 8 July 2013, the author began working as a security officer at the premises of a

government office in Albania. He was employed by the Republican Guard, a military and

police institution tasked with protecting high-ranking officials and government buildings.

2.2

During the course of his duties, the author often received orders to commit unlawful

acts. On one such occasion, his superiors instructed him not to check vehicles that were

entering the premises of the government office where he worked. Out of a sense of

professionalism, the author refused to comply with the orders.

2.3

On 13 December 2013, at around 8 a.m., the author checked a car that had approached

the government office. He found explosives and a remote control and acted immediately to

prevent an explosion. He later discovered that the car was used by the General Director of

Anti-Corruption, who worked for the Prime Minister.

2.4

Later that day, the General Director of Anti-Corruption threatened the author and told

him not to mention the General Director’s name in connection with the incident. A few days

later, a cousin of the General Director threatened the author, saying that he would pay for

having stopped the car. The cousin stated that he was acting on behalf of the Minister of the

Interior and the General Command of the Republican Guard. The author tried to take legal

measures against the cousin in response to the threat but was unsuccessful, as the cousin was

protected by powerful individuals.

2.5

On 13 March 2014, the same cousin approached the author again and told him that he

and the Minister of the Interior would kill the author if he spoke to anyone about the events

described above. The author reported the threats to his supervisor and to other authorities.

However, the authorities did not take action and did not provide any reason for not doing so.

2.6

On 10 June 2014, the author was dismissed from his position. Thereafter, he and D

were persecuted daily by various individuals, to the point where it became impossible for

them to keep living in Tirana. The author sent D to stay in another city while he

unsuccessfully tried to bring his persecutors to justice. He was not able to stay in the same

place for long and was forced to remain separated from his family. As a result, D was under

constant stress and was too afraid to attend her regular medical examinations. The couple’s

first child, E, was born underweight in 2014.

2.7

On 19 March 2015, the author was summoned to court to testify in a case involving

crimes linked to an organization responsible for the assassinations of more than 20 people in

countries in the European Union. Some members of that criminal organization had received

State support. After testifying, the author left Albania to protect himself and his family.

2.8

On 1 June 2015, the author, D and E arrived in Sweden and applied for asylum. The

migration authorities appointed a legal representative for them. On 15 December 2015, the

Swedish Migration Agency rejected the asylum application. On 22 December 2015, the

family’s lawyer unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the Migration Court against the

Swedish Migration Agency’s decision. The family then filed a request for leave to appeal

before the Migration Court of Appeal, which rejected the request on 12 April 2016.

2.9

After the decision not to grant asylum was confirmed, the author and his family

decided to remain in Sweden without authorization. On 29 July 2016, their cases were handed

over to the Swedish police, as they had absconded.

2.10

On 14 September 2016, a former prime minister and leader of the Democratic Party

of Albania published a social media post in which he stated that the author had uncovered a

political scandal on 13 December 2013.1 On 15 September 2016 and in the weeks that

1 The author provided an English translation of a social media post published by a politician. In the

post, the politician shared an email that he had received from a journalist in Sweden in which the

journalist, in turn, reproduced an email that he said that he had received from the author. In that email,

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

GE.24-13697

3

followed, the author was named in several news articles in Albania in connection with the

events of 13 December 2013. The primary newspaper of the Democratic Party of Albania,

for example, described in detail the efforts of the Government of Albania to cover up the

scandal, including the author’s departure from his position with the Republican Guard and

the subsequent threats that he had received.

2.11

The Prime Minister then dismissed the General Director of Anti-Corruption. On

27 October 2016, three men located the author’s brother in Albania, brutally beat him with

baseball bats and demanded that he disclose the author’s whereabouts. The attackers wore

masks similar to those worn by the police in Albania. The author’s brother was hospitalized

with serious injuries. Later that night, the home of the author’s parents was set on fire with

explosives. The family tried to file a complaint and seek protection from the police, but their

request for protection was rejected.

2.12

On 8 March 2017, the author, D and E applied for residence permits and for their

asylum applications to be re-examined. They based their applications on the new

circumstances described above. Separately, following the birth of their second child, F, on

6 November 2017, the couple filed an asylum application on her behalf on 19 December 2017.

On 15 March 2018, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the applications. The Migration

Court rejected the appeal filed on behalf of F on 30 April 2018 and that filed on behalf of the

other family members on 14 May 2018. The Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant

leave to appeal to F on 29 May 2018 and to the other family members on 25 June 2018 (see

para. 6 below).

Complaint

3.1

The author submits that, by deporting him, D, E and F to Albania, the State party

would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The author witnessed a serious

criminal event in December 2013 in Albania and was subjected to flagrant acts of abuse of

authority and threats by high-ranking officials of the Government of Albania, namely, the

Minister of the Interior, the General Secretary of the Government and the General Director

of Anti-Corruption, and by senior police officials. The author would be killed if he returned

to Albania. In addition, because of their ties to the author, D, E and F would likely face

inhumane or cruel treatment at the hands of criminal groups linked to the Government of

Albania.

3.2

The State party’s migration authorities also violated the family’s right to a fair hearing

under articles 2 (1) and (3) and 14 (1) of the Covenant by making extraordinary procedural

errors. During the first set of asylum proceedings, which began in 2015, the Swedish

Migration Agency decided, before examining the merits of the case, that, under chapter 8,

section 19 of the Aliens Act, it was likely that it would reject the family’s asylum claim.

However, that provision of the Aliens Act only concerns the immediate expulsion and refusal

of entry of foreigners for security reasons or for previously determined reasons. The provision

therefore did not apply to the situation of the author and his family (see para. 4.4 below).

3.3

During the second round of asylum proceedings, which took place in 2017 and 2018,

the migration authorities also made various procedural errors. They erred in finding that the

author’s departure from his job had been motivated by his low salary. They also disregarded

the family’s fear of facing retaliation from the Government of Albania and arrived at a

predetermined conclusion regarding the claims raised. The Swedish Migration Agency stated

that the author had made a speculative claim that criminal groups tied to former government

officials wanted to silence him. In fact, the author is concerned about being killed by officials

who are currently in power in Albania. The Swedish Migration Agency also stated that the

former Prime Minister of Albania had published a post relating to the author on his private

Facebook page when, in fact, the post appeared on the Prime Minister’s official public

Facebook page. The Swedish Migration Agency further stated, erroneously, that no one in

the author’s family had been exposed to any harm in the period leading up to their departure

from Albania. It also wrongly concluded that the reasons behind the attack on the author’s

the author stated his full name and recounted the main allegations that he had included in his asylum

applications in Sweden regarding the incident with the explosives.

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

4

GE.24-13697

brother were undetermined. Moreover, the Agency should not have dismissed the documents

that the author provided from the fire service and the Albanian State Police on the grounds

that they were short and simple. The Migration Court also erred in finding that the police in

Albania could offer effective protection to the author and his family. In addition, the Agency

refused to translate Albanian-language documents that the author had provided, including

magazine and news articles in which he was named.

State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

In its submission of 22 August 2019, the State party submitted that it considered that

the communication was inadmissible, as article 2 of the Covenant may not be invoked alone,

and the author had not substantiated his claims under articles 7 and 14 of the Covenant.2

According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the burden to meet the high threshold of proof

rests with the author,3 who must establish that there is a real risk of treatment contrary to

article 7 of the Covenant as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of an expulsion. The

Committee is not a court of fourth instance, and considerable weight should be given to the

assessment by the State party’s authorities. The State party does not underestimate the

concerns that may legitimately be expressed regarding the general human rights situation in

Albania, as indicated in various human rights reports.4 However, that general situation is

insufficient to establish that the expulsion of the author and his family would violate article 7

of the Covenant.5 As the State party’s migration authorities determined, the author has not

substantiated that he, D, E and F would personally face a real risk of being subjected to

treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant were they returned to Albania.

4.2

The State party explains that the asylum assessment made by its migration authorities

was significantly broader in scope than the matter before the Committee. The proceedings

concerned not only the risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, but also other

grounds for asylum and for obtaining a residence permit. The domestic authorities were well

positioned to assess the family’s claims and appraise their credibility. Both the Swedish

Migration Agency and the Migration Court thoroughly examined the family’s case. On

3 June 2015, the Swedish Migration Agency held introductory asylum interviews with the

author and D. On 8 June 2015, it held another three-hour asylum interview with both of them.

At the end of the interview, the author and D were informed that their asylum application

would likely be rejected in accordance with chapter 8, section 19 of the Aliens Act. After the

interview, the author cited additional circumstances that he had not previously invoked.

Accordingly, the Swedish Migration Agency held two additional interviews with the author,

on 13 August and 21 October 2015. Those interviews lasted more than six hours and were

held in the presence of the counsel assigned to represent the family. The interviews were all

conducted with the assistance of interpreters, and the author and D confirmed that they had

understood the interpreters well. The minutes from the interviews were subsequently

transmitted to the family’s counsel. Given the young age of the author’s children, they were

not interviewed. However, the author and D were given the opportunity to explain their

children’s cited grounds for asylum and to provide details about the state of their health.

4.3

Through their public counsel, the author and D were invited to scrutinize and submit

written observations on the minutes from the interviews and to make written submissions and

appeals. Thus, they had several opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances

in support of the family’s claims and to argue their case both orally and in writing before the

Swedish Migration Agency and in writing before the Migration Court. The authorities had

sufficient information to make well-informed, transparent and reasonable assessments of

their applications. There is therefore no reason to find that the domestic rulings were

inadequate or that the outcome of the domestic proceedings was in any way arbitrary or

amounted to a denial of justice.

2 The State party does not contest that the author exhausted domestic remedies and does not allege that

the same matter is or has been examined by another international body.

3 For example, X v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014).

4 For example, Amnesty International, Report 2017/18: The state of the world’s human rights, 2018,

pp. 69–70.

5 General comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, para. 30.

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

GE.24-13697

5

4.4

The State party also contends that the communication does not indicate a violation of

the Covenant. It is incorrect that, in 2015, the Swedish Migration Agency decided to reject

the family’s first asylum claim without having examined it. After the interview with the

author and D on 8 June 2015, the Agency considered it likely that the family’s applications

would be deemed manifestly unfounded. That does not mean that their applications were not

examined on the merits. The author referred to a version of the Aliens Act that was in force

prior to the amendments made after 1 April 2009. The correct wording of the relevant

provision (chapter 8, section 19 of the Aliens Act) is different from that referred to by the

author. The migration authorities thoroughly assessed the author’s claims in accordance with

domestic law.

4.5

There is no evidence that the current general security and human rights situation in

Albania gives rise to a general need to protect all asylum-seekers from that country. The

migration authorities assessed the family’s vulnerability and found that they had not

substantiated their claim for international protection. The authorities also duly considered the

best interests of the children and the consequences that an expulsion would have on their

health and development.

4.6

With respect to the risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, the Swedish

Migration Agency noted that the author had received threats in the course of his duties as a

security officer. However, it also observed that, between December 2013, when the incident

involving the car containing explosives occurred, and June 2015, when the family left

Albania, neither the author nor any member of his family had been physically harmed in

relation to those threats. Furthermore, the author did not claim to have received threats after

his dismissal from his position in June 2014. It had not emerged that his dismissal was

connected to the alleged threats. Moreover, D and E had never been threatened in Albania.

The author had been able to live openly in his hometown during that period without being

sought by the authorities. There was therefore no reason to believe that the author and his

family risked facing treatment in Albania that would warrant international protection.

4.7

Whereas the appeal procedure before the Migration Court is generally in writing, an

oral hearing may be held upon the request of an alien if such a hearing is not unnecessary and

if there are no special grounds for not holding one. The Migration Court denied the author’s

request for an oral hearing owing to the circumstances of the case. However, it invited the

author and D to make additional written submissions.

4.8

In its decision, the Migration Court made several findings. It found that the family’s

cited grounds for protection were insufficient to grant them international protection and that

the alleged threats were criminal acts perpetrated by individuals. Under applicable principles,

national protection took precedence over international protection, meaning that persons in

need of protection had to first seek it from the authorities of their country of origin. Only in

cases where the authorities in the country of origin lacked the will or the ability to assist those

individuals would it be possible to receive protection in Sweden. Even though there might be

certain deficiencies in the judicial system in Albania, protection from the authorities was

available. On that issue, the written evidence submitted by the author did not alter the

assessment by the Migration Court. Moreover, no one in the family had been subjected to

any harm owing to the alleged threats. The author and D had not plausibly demonstrated that

the authorities in Albania lacked the will or the ability to protect them.

4.9

It was only after the removal order became final and non-appealable that the author

and his family filed applications to the Swedish Migration Agency to be granted residence

permits or for their case to be re-examined. In its decision on the new applications, the

Swedish Migration Agency concluded that the author’s claim that the publication of

newspaper articles meant that criminal groups had stronger reasons to silence him was purely

speculative. Moreover, the motives behind the alleged assault of the author’s brother were

not clear, nor was there any proof that the fire at his parents’ house had any connection to the

alleged threat against the author. The written statement that the author had provided from the

police was of a simple nature and contained spelling errors. Its probative value was therefore

deemed to be low.

4.10

When ruling on the author’s subsequent appeal, the Migration Court considered that,

even if the author and D had been threatened by people with connections to high-ranking

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

6

GE.24-13697

public officials, nothing indicated that the Government of Albania had supported those

criminal acts. The Migration Court further noted that, according to a document from the

police in the city of Shkodra, the alleged crimes against the author’s brother and parents had

indeed been investigated by the authorities and that the reason that no one could be

prosecuted for the offences was that the perpetrators had left no evidence. In sum, the

Migration Court found that there were no grounds to assume that the police lacked the will

or ability to offer the family effective protection and that no new circumstances had emerged

to constitute a lasting impediment to enforcement of their removal.

4.11

The State party agrees with the assessment by its domestic authorities that the author

has not plausibly demonstrated that the authorities in Albania lack the will or ability to protect

them from the alleged threat. Article 7 (2) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European

Parliament and of the Council indicates the reasonable measures that State actors must take

in order to provide effective protection that prevents persecution or serious harm. Specifically,

these actors must, inter alia, ensure that there is an effective legal system for the detection,

prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm and that the

author has access to such protection. However, this does not mean that all reported crimes –

i.e. in cases where evidence is lacking and the perpetrators are unknown – must lead to

convictions. If there is no reason to believe that the actions of the police are governed by

anything other than ordinary investigatory considerations, there is no basis for finding that

the Government lacks the will or ability to protect people in a manner that warrants

international protection.

4.12

In the present case, the author did not report the alleged threats to the police. The

written statement that the police in Shkodra allegedly gave to his brother and father is not

sufficient to support his claim that the authorities lack the will and ability to protect them. In

any event, the author has not substantiated his explanation as to why he chose not to turn to

the authorities in Albania regarding the alleged threats. Thus, the author and D did not

exhaust all available possibilities of receiving protection in their country of origin.

4.13

Before the Committee, the author has claimed that he was threatened by the General

Director of Anti-Corruption on the day of the incident in December 2013, when he allegedly

stopped a car containing explosives. The threat constitutes a new circumstance that the author

did not raise during the asylum proceedings. Instead, he asserted during the asylum

proceedings that a relative of the General Director had threatened him two days after the

incident with the explosives. The author has not explained why he withheld that new

information. It is reasonable to expect that he would not have omitted such a fundamental

aspect of his claim during the asylum proceedings. The new information represents an

expansion of the alleged grounds for asylum in his communication to the Committee and

strongly calls into question the veracity of the claim.

4.14

Several of the author’s allegations before the Committee are also unsupported by any

form of evidence and are instead based on the author’s speculations. Moreover, many years

have now passed since the incident with the car and the explosives. There is no evidence to

indicate that the author currently faces a threat in Albania.

4.15

Regarding the translation of the documents submitted by the author, neither the

Swedish Migration Agency nor the Migration Court questioned the contents of those

documents. However, many of them were of a simple nature and the statement allegedly

written by the police contained spelling errors. Even if the newspaper articles mentioned the

author’s name, there was no evidence of a threat against him in Albania or evidence that the

authorities lacked the will or ability to protect him and his family.

4.16

In sum, the author has not demonstrated that there is a current and real threat against

him or his family in Albania or that they face a foreseeable, personal and real risk of being

subjected to treatment contrary to the Covenant, nor has the author demonstrated that the

authorities in Albania are unwilling or unable to protect him and his family.

Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

5.1

In comments submitted on 25 October 2019, the author stated that his previous error

in incorrectly citing Swedish law had not been deliberate. He did not realize that the Aliens

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

GE.24-13697

7

Act had been amended. The amendments, however, do not alter the fact that the State party

has violated his rights in a clear and flagrant manner and has denied him justice.

5.2

The author asserts that he has substantiated his claims. On 13 July 2015, he informed

the Swedish Migration Agency that his brother had received several telephone calls from

various individuals who requested information about the author and identified themselves as

employees of the Republican Guard. The callers all stated: “Greet your brother on our side,

and say we’re going to hurt him and his daughter, where it hurts most if he leak [sic]

information.” In one of the calls, the author’s brother stated that, if the callers continued to

disturb him, he would call the police. Immediately thereafter, the author’s brother received a

text message on his phone that stated: “he [expletive] both him and the police and that he will

place Tritol on him” [sic].6 The author’s brother felt very scared and went to the police in

Shkodra to report the incidents. He spoke to a judicial police officer, but instead of finding

protection and support, the author’s brother was informed that he should withdraw his

complaint. The police officer deleted the text message that the author’s brother had on his

phone and refused to file the author’s brother’s complaint. In 2016, the author’s name was

published by the Prime Minister of Albania and republished by almost all newspapers and

television stations in Albania. The author’s family’s home was blown up as threatened. If the

author had stayed in Albania, he would have been killed several years ago.

5.3

Regarding the assessment of facts and circumstances by domestic authorities in the

State party and the applicable standards for protection, the author cites articles 4 and 7 of the

Council of the European Union Directive 2004/83/EC.7 The State party has not met the

standards contained in that Directive. The migration authorities wrongly stated that the author

had not been subjected to physical violence, refused to translate his evidence and did not

assess whether he would be able to obtain effective and permanent protection from the

authorities in Albania. The authorities in Albania never made any attempt to stop the criminal

acts perpetrated against the author. The State party’s migration authorities should have

considered the cumulative risk factors relating to refoulement, including situations of general

violence and heightened security.

5.4

The author describes the meaning of a “well-founded fear of persecution” pursuant to

the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. He also refers to the Committee’s general

comments, in particular general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts

and tribunals and to a fair trial, and its jurisprudence on article 14 of the Covenant. He further

refers to an unspecified report of the United States Department of State regarding the human

rights situation in Albania.

5.5

The author acknowledges that, as indicated by the State party, he was informed on

8 June 2015 that the Swedish Migration Agency would subsequently issue a decision on his

case. However, he maintains that, in reality, the Agency had already made its decision on

3 June 2015, only one day after the author had applied for asylum, and before the asylum

interview on 8 June 2015. The date of the decision (3 June 2015) is stated in the relevant

documentation. The author did then request an additional interview with the Swedish

Migration Agency, the reason being that many translation errors were made during the

interview held on 8 June 2015.

5.6

The author disputes various factual assertions made by the State party. For example,

the State party maintains that there was no indication that the author’s dismissal from his

position was linked to the alleged threats that he had received. The author disagrees. The

person against whom the author filed a complaint later returned to the author’s place of

employment and stated that he was a friend of the Minister of the Interior. He told the author:

“We’ll take off our uniform very soon and then we’ll kill you.” Shortly thereafter, the author

was dismissed from his job. The only person who had the authority to appoint and dismiss

officers was the Minister of the Interior. Moreover, while the State party takes note of the

6 The explosive substance commonly used by military forces is often referred to by the trade name

Tritol.

7 The author also cites, inter alia, the Court of Justice of the European Union, M.M. v. Minister for

Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Others, Case C-277/11, judgment, 22 November 2012,

paras. 63–67; and European Court of Human Rights, Labita v. Italy, Application No. 26772/95,

judgment, 6 April 2000, para. 119.

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

8

GE.24-13697

fact that the author was not subjected to physical violence, that is only because the author

had military and police training and was attentive to his situation. Nevertheless, he was

persecuted and threatened in various ways. Dozens of newspapers published articles about

those events, which clearly substantiate his claims.

State party’s additional observations

6.

In its additional submission of 15 July 2022, the State party informed the Committee

that, after their removal orders became statute barred, the author, D and E had filed new

applications for asylum and for residence permits on 22 December 2020. The Swedish

Migration Agency held introductory interviews and then extensive interviews with them in

the presence of an interpreter and an assigned counsel. On 21 April 2021, the Swedish

Migration Agency rejected the new applications. The author, D and E subsequently filed an

appeal before the Migration Court, which was rejected on 10 November 2021. On 31 January

2022, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant leave to appeal. The decision to

expel F became statute barred on 29 May 2022 and is no longer enforceable. It follows from

the new decisions of the migration authorities that there are no new circumstances that

warrant a different assessment than the one made in the earlier proceedings. Moreover, the

Swedish Migration Agency considered that the author’s account lacked credibility.

Additional comments from the author

7.1

In additional submissions of 15 February and 21 April 2021, 5 January 2022 and

6 February and 22 March 2023, the author reiterates that the communication is admissible

and that the migration authorities did not properly assess the family’s claims for protection.8

7.2

On 16 February 2023, the Swedish Migration Agency provided an update on the legal

situation of F, noting that the removal order against her had become statute barred. Strangely,

the decision made regarding F is diametrically opposed to that made concerning the author,

D and E. The difference in these outcomes confirms that the decision made by the Swedish

Migration Agency in 2020 concerning the author, D and E was unlawful. The author was the

only person who had full knowledge of the incident on 13 December 2013, since he oversaw

the external security of the building in question. He is a target because he is the only person

who could bring the perpetrators to justice. He experienced fear and intimidation as a witness.

The same regime remains in power in Albania.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

8.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is

admissible under the Optional Protocol.

8.2

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional

Protocol, that the same matter is not presently being examined under any other procedure of

international investigation or settlement.

8.3

Regarding the claims under article 2 (1) and (3) of the Covenant, the Committee

recalls its jurisprudence, according to which the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant set

out general obligations for States parties and do not give rise, when invoked separately, to

8 Regarding human rights conditions in Albania, the author refers, inter alia, to Transparency

International, Examining State Capture: Undue Influence on Law-Making and the Judiciary in the

Western Balkans and Turkey, 2020; and United States Department of State, Albania 2020 Human

Rights Report, 2020. He also refers to two news articles from Albanian publications that discuss the

involvement of a former Minister of the Interior in drug trafficking and his link to the General

Director of Anti-Corruption who had threatened the author. The author maintains that the information

in the articles indicates that those individuals use their official positions for personal interests with

impunity, that they pose a danger and that the author is dealing with a high-level criminal

organization.

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

GE.24-13697

9

claims in a communication under the Optional Protocol.9 The Committee therefore declares

the claims under article 2 (1) and (3) of the Covenant to be inadmissible ratione materiae

under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

8.4

With respect to the claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant, to the effect that the

State party’s migration authorities did not properly assess the family’s protection claims, the

Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which proceedings relating to the

extradition, expulsion and deportation of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination

of rights and obligations in a suit at law within the meaning of article 14, but are governed

by article 13 of the Covenant,10 which applies to all procedures aimed at the obligatory

departure of an alien.11 The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim under

article 14 of the Covenant is inadmissible ratione materiae.

8.5

The Committee takes note of the State party’s position that the communication is

inadmissible because it is insufficiently substantiated. The Committee also takes note of the

author’s assertion that, by deporting him, D, E and F to Albania, the State party would expose

them to a risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant because he received threats

from a high-ranking public official and that official’s cousin in 2013 after refusing to cover

up unlawful acts committed by others while he was working as a security guard in the

Republican Guard. He also alleges that, in 2015, he testified in court in Albania against an

individual linked to a powerful criminal organization; that in October 2016, his brother was

violently attacked by individuals who sought to extract information on the author’s

whereabouts; that, on the same day, his parents’ house was burned and blown up in an arson

attack; that his brother received additional threats by telephone from individuals who warned

the author not to leak information; and that, owing to widespread corruption and impunity,

the police and other authorities in Albania are unable and unwilling to protect him and his

family from being harmed by powerful individuals.

8.6

The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general

legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it referred to the

obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from

their territory when there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of

irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. According

to the Committee’s established jurisprudence,12 the risk must be personal, and there is a high

threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish the existence of a real risk of

irreparable harm. All relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the

general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. It is generally for organs of

States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence to determine whether

a risk of irreparable harm exists. Considerable weight should be given to the assessment

conducted by the State party unless the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a

denial of justice.

8.7

The Committee notes that the State party’s migration authorities evaluated the

family’s protection claims on numerous occasions: during the initial asylum proceedings in

2015 and 2016; when applications for re-examination were made in 2017 and 2018 based on

impediments to removal; and when considering the renewed asylum applications between

2020 and 2022. During the initial asylum proceedings, the author and his family were

assigned a public counsel and were interviewed and heard several times by the migration

authorities, with interpretation services provided and in the presence of their counsel. In

written decisions, the Swedish Migration Agency and then the Migration Court examined the

substance of the family’s allegations. While the author maintains that, during the asylum

proceedings, the Agency prejudged the outcome of the case and cited an inapposite provision

of the Aliens Act in its decision, the Committee takes note of the author’s subsequent

9 For example, Taylor et al. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/138/D/3666/2019), para. 6.5; Devi Maya Nepal

v. Nepal (CCPR/C/132/D/2615/2015), para. 6.6; and Billy et al. v. Australia

(CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019), para. 7.4.

10 For example, Kim v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/139/D/4170/2022), para. 7.13; and X v. Denmark, para.

8.5.

11 General comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Covenant, para. 9.

12 For example, B.R. and M.G. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/138/D/2342/2014), para. 12.6.

CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019

10

GE.24-13697

acknowledgement that he had cited an outdated version of that provision. Furthermore, the

Committee notes that it was only after the three-hour asylum interview with the author and

D on 8 June 2015 that the Agency indicated that their claim would likely be denied based on

their submissions. The Agency later issued a reasoned decision. In addition, while the author

states that translation errors had occurred during the interview on 8 June 2015, the Committee

notes that the Agency granted the author’s request for additional interviews, which took place

on 13 August and 21 October 2015. Those interviews lasted over six hours and were held in

the presence of interpreters and the public counsel representing the family. The Committee

thus considers that the family had sufficient opportunities to submit their allegations to the

Agency and to supplement them. Moreover, although the author asserts that the decisions of

the domestic authorities were arbitrary, given that the removal order against his younger

daughter is no longer enforceable, whereas the removal orders against the rest of the family

remain enforceable, the Committee notes that the orders logically have different expiration

dates because the asylum applications were filed on different dates. The Committee therefore

considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his argument that the domestic

proceedings were arbitrary or erroneous in terms of their procedures.

8.8

With respect to the substantive analyses by the State party’s authorities, the

Committee takes note of the findings of the Swedish Migration Agency that the author had

never been harmed in Albania; that he did not claim to have received threats after his

dismissal from his position in June 2014; that he had lived openly in Albania without being

sought during the entire period from September 2013 to 1 June 2015, when the family left

the country; that he was not credible in his account during the third set of asylum proceedings;

that the related documentation he provided regarding his brother and father had low probative

value; and that D and E had never been threatened in Albania. The Committee notes that the

author has not explained why he did not raise before the migration authorities the claim raised

before the Committee that, on the day in 2013 when he had stopped a car containing

explosives, he had also been threatened by the General Director of Anti-Corruption. The

Committee considers that the latter threat is a material aspect of the author’s claim, which

differs from his initial account. The Committee also takes note of the fact that, after the final

rejection of the family’s initial asylum application, the author’s own account of the threats

against him was published online through various outlets. The Committee observes that the

author has not explained why, when facing deportation, he proactively sought to publicize,

through a journalist, his name and the allegations of the risks he faced. The author has not

reconciled that conduct with his claim of fearing treatment contrary to article 7 of the

Covenant upon return to Albania. The Committee further observes that, while the author has

stated that he and his family were persecuted on a daily basis in Tirana after his dismissal in

June 2014, he did not provide details about the persecution and thus did not provide sufficient

elements to indicate that there was a real and personal threat against them before they applied

for asylum in June 2015. The Committee also takes note of the Swedish Migration Agency’s

observation that the author did not report the alleged threats to the police and that, while the

author claims that he remains at risk in Albania, 10 years have passed since the alleged threats

were made. The Committee acknowledges that the author disputes several aspects of the

migration authorities’ decision-making processes. However, for the reasons previously

indicated, the Committee considers that the author has not substantiated his claim that the

State party’s assessment of the family’s allegations that they would face torture or

ill-treatment in Albania was clearly arbitrary or erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice.

Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant

is insufficiently substantiated and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional

Protocol.

9.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional

Protocol;

(b)

That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the

author.