Inadmissibility decision; Subjects: CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, SWEDEN; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.26-04155 (E) 280426 290426
Human Rights Committee
Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional
Protocol, concerning communication No. 3727/2020*, **
Communication submitted by:
R (not represented by counsel)
Alleged victim:
The author
State Party:
Sweden
Date of communication:
6 February 2020 (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 1 May 2020, 25 May 2021
and 25 July 2024 (not issued in document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
16 March 2026
Subject matter:
Expulsion to Burundi
Procedural issue:
Level of substantiation of claims
Substantive issues:
Political activities; aliens’ rights; aliens’ rights –
expulsion; non-refoulement; cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment; refugee
status; torture
Articles of the Covenant:
6, 7 and 13
Article of the Optional Protocol:
2
1.1
The author of the communication is R, a national of Burundi born in 1983. He asserts
that the State Party has violated his rights under article 13 of the Covenant. The Optional
Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 23 March 1976. The author is not
represented by counsel.
1.2
On 1 May 2020, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new
communications and interim measures, rejected the author’s request that it ask the State Party
not to expel him to Burundi while his application was under consideration.
* Adopted by the Committee at its 145th session (2–19 March 2026).
** 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,
Carlos Ramón Fernández Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia Leinarte, Bacre Waly
Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Tijana Šurlan,
Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.
United Nations
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
Distr.: General
2 April 2026
English
Original: French
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
2
GE.26-04155
1.3
On 11 May 2021, the author reiterated his request for interim measures. On 25 May
2021, pursuant to rule 94 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting through its Special
Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures, asked the State Party to refrain
from expelling the author to Burundi while his case was under consideration by the
Committee.
1.4
On 15 June 2021, the State Party requested that the interim measures be lifted. On
25 July 2024, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications
and interim measures, denied the State Party’s request. The author remains in Sweden.
1.5
On 23 September 2024, the author claimed that he was going to be expelled despite
the request for interim measures. On 24 September 2024, the State Party confirmed that the
interim measures remained in place and that the author was not at risk of expulsion.
1.6
On 28 September 2025, the author claimed that he was going to be expelled by the
Swedish police. On 29 September 2025, the State Party confirmed that the interim measures
remained in place and that the author was not at risk of expulsion.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
In 2009, the author entered Sweden for the first time and submitted an initial
application for asylum. In March 2010, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the
application and, in March 2011, the Migration Court dismissed the author’s appeal. In
July 2011, the Migration Court of Appeal denied the author’s request for leave to appeal the
decision of the Migration Court.
2.2
In December 2012, the author returned to Burundi. On 21 March 2013, he applied to
the Swedish Migration Agency for a residence permit in Sweden on the basis of his
relationship with his partner. In Burundi, in 2013, the author joined the Mouvement pour la
solidarité et la démocratie (Movement for Solidarity and Democracy), an opposition political
party. He recruited members for the party, including his cousin, N, who was arrested and
imprisoned in 2016 on account of his membership of the party. Released after paying a
ransom to the authorities, N is currently in Rwanda.
2.3
In March 2014, the Swedish Migration Agency granted the author a residence permit,
valid for two years, to join his partner.
2.4
In Sweden, in 2015, the author took part in a demonstration against the Government
of Burundi, as well as a demonstration protesting the refoulement of asylum-seekers to
Burundi. He regularly attended meetings of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie.
2.5
On 16 March 2016, the author requested the extension of his residence permit. On
30 October 2017, the Swedish Migration Agency assigned counsel to the author in
connection with the proceedings. On 5 December 2017, counsel submitted pleadings on
behalf of the author.
2.6
On 22 March 2018, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected the author’s application
to extend his residence permit on account of doubts as to whether his relationship with his
supposed partner was genuine. The Agency noted that the couple did not cohabit permanently
and that the author was unable to answer questions regarding the address of his partner and
her children correctly.
2.7
On 11 February 2019, the Migration Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the author
against the decision of the Swedish Migration Agency regarding the extension of his
residence permit. In its decision, the Court noted that, in follow-up to the author’s request,
the Agency had heard testimonies from his partner and another person, and it had concluded
that there was no evidence that the author’s relationship with his partner was serious. On
8 April 2019, the Migration Court of Appeal denied the author’s request for leave to appeal
the decision of the Migration Court.
2.8
On 13 May 2019, the author, without the assistance of counsel, applied to the Swedish
Migration Agency to suspend the enforcement of his expulsion and to grant him a residence
permit. On 13 December 2019, the Agency rejected his application. In its decision, the
Agency noted that the author had not specified the date on which he had joined the
Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie, nor whether, in addition to being a member,
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
GE.26-04155
3
he had actively participated in the party’s activities. The Agency also noted that the author
had mentioned only one instance of participation in opposition political activity, which had
taken place three and a half years earlier – in Sweden. According to the Agency, there was
no evidence to suggest that the author would be considered an opponent of the regime or that
he would be subject to persecution. Consequently, no new circumstances had been presented
that could be considered a permanent obstacle to the enforcement of the expulsion order.
2.9
The author appealed the decision of the Swedish Migration Agency to the Migration
Court. On 17 January 2020, the appeal was dismissed. While acknowledging his political
involvement, the Court found in its decision that the author did not play a significant role
within the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie and that there was no indication
that the Burundian authorities were aware of his political activities. The Court also noted that
the author’s assertion that his cousin, N, had a photograph of him on his mobile phone, which
had allegedly been spotted by the Burundian authorities when N was detained, was purely
speculative. The Court further noted that the author had only invoked his political activities
in 2019, even though he claimed to have been an activist for the Mouvement pour la solidarité
et la démocratie since 2013, and the main events giving rise to his fear of being returned –
his participation in a demonstration and the arrest of N – had occurred in 2015 and 2016,
respectively.
2.10
At the time of submission of the communication, the author’s appeal against the
decision of the Migration Court regarding his application for suspension was still pending
before the Migration Court of Appeal. According to the author, his return was not suspended.
Complaint
3.1
The author submits that, by expelling him to Burundi, the State Party would violate
his rights under article 13 of the Covenant.1 The author fears being killed or detained in
Burundi. Owing to his political activities within the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la
démocratie since he first returned to Burundi in 2012, he can no longer go back there. In 2015,
he took part in demonstrations protesting the refoulement of asylum-seekers to Burundi. In
addition, he is an active member of the Burundian diaspora in Sweden, which the
Government of Burundi considers hostile to the regime. The author is from the Province of
Cibitoke, where clashes have taken place between the army and rebel groups, including
members of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie.
3.2
The arrest of the author’s cousin, N, for his involvement in the Mouvement pour la
solidarité et la démocratie demonstrates the risk to which the author himself would be
exposed in Burundi. The author appears in photographs scattered across social media and on
the website of the Burundian diaspora in Sweden. The Burundian diaspora group to which
he belongs was contacted by an association in Norway that spies on opponents abroad on
behalf of the Government of Burundi and seeks to intimidate Burundians abroad to dissuade
them from taking part in demonstrations. This association probably informed the Burundian
secret services of the author’s participation in the 2015 demonstration in Sweden. The
migration authorities downplayed the author’s claims.
3.3
In the proceedings concerning the renewal of the author’s residence permit, the
migration authorities questioned whether his relationship with his partner was genuine, even
though they were together at the time and still are. During the interview with the couple, the
interpretation was not adequate; the interpreter spoke mainly Swahili, whereas the author had
requested interpretation into his mother tongue. When the investigator asked the author his
partner’s address, his response was not entered correctly owing to his Swedish pronunciation.
The author lived with his partner full-time during the summer of 2016. The author told the
investigator that, once his partner’s children had moved out, the couple would live together.
In addition, because of the stress of the interview, the author lost his composure and was
unable to remember his partner’s address and the birthdays of his partner’s children, even
though he knew them perfectly well. His partner also felt stressed; consequently, she forgot
that the author has a sister. The author explains the financial reasons for which the couple did
not live together. Before speaking with their lawyer, they did not know that cohabitation was
1 The author invokes articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant in his later comments. See paragraph 5.4.
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
4
GE.26-04155
one of the conditions for the granting of a permanent residence permit. After talking with
their lawyer, they realized that there was a very real risk of the author’s being expelled, and
they told the lawyer that the author was going to move in with his partner. In 2017, they had
been living together in Sweden for quite some time.
3.4
Furthermore, during the 2019 proceedings in which the author applied to the Swedish
Migration Agency to suspend his expulsion and grant him a residence permit, he did not have
the assistance of counsel and there was no hearing.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its observations of 18 December 2020, the State Party notes that, in his initial
asylum application in 2009, the author claimed that he was being threatened by the father of
his former Muslim partner and that she was pregnant with his child.
4.2
On 12 September 2017, the Swedish Migration Agency interviewed the author and
his partner in connection with his application to renew his residence permit. The author stated
that he understood the interpreter and the interviewer, and he approved the transcript of the
interview without comment. On 30 October 2017, despite the author’s having been given the
opportunity to choose a legal representative beforehand, the Swedish Migration Agency
ultimately assigned counsel for him.
4.3
On 31 January 2018, the Swedish Migration Agency informed the author in writing
that, if he believed he was in need of international protection, he could submit an asylum
application. On 9 February 2018, the author’s partner requested, on his behalf, additional
time to decide whether he would apply for asylum. The request was accepted. However, the
author did not apply for asylum.
4.4
In its decision of 22 March 2018 regarding the renewal of the author’s residence
permit, the Swedish Migration Agency found that the author’s relationship with his partner
was, from the outset, a relationship of convenience. On 23 January 2019, during the appeal
proceedings, the Migration Court held a hearing. On that occasion, the author’s partner was
heard as a witness, at the author’s request. In its decision, the Migration Court found that the
author had not demonstrated, as required under domestic law, the seriousness of his
relationship. The Migration Court attached particular importance to the very different
answers given by the author and his partner regarding the frequency of the author’s stays
with her, the date of their last meeting before the interview with the Swedish Migration
Agency and their respective personal situations.
4.5
The State Party submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly
unfounded. With regard to the claims based on articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the risk of
irreparable harm in the country of return must be the real, personal, necessary and foreseeable
consequence of the forced return.2 The threshold for establishing the existence of such a risk
is high, and all relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account.3 It is incumbent
upon the author to prove that there is such a risk. 4 Considerable importance should be
accorded to the State Party’s assessment.5 The Committee is not a court of fourth instance
that should reevaluate facts and evidence de novo.
4.6
Various reports describe the situation of human rights in Burundi.6 The State Party
does not underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed in this regard.
However, this situation is not in itself sufficient to establish that the author’s expulsion would
violate articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant, and he has not demonstrated that he would be
personally exposed to a real risk of ill-treatment in Burundi.
4.7
The Swedish Aliens Act incorporates the principles of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the
Covenant. The migration authorities applied those principles by thoroughly examining the
2 For example, Dauphin v. Canada (CCPR/C/96/D/1792/2008), para. 7.4; and A.R.J. v. Australia
(CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996), para. 6.14.
3 X v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014), para. 7.3.
4 Hamida v. Canada (CCPR/C/98/D/1544/2007), para. 8.7.
5 A.H.S. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2473/2014), para. 7.5.
6 See, for example, S/2019/837.
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
GE.26-04155
5
author’s claims. The Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court are two specialized
bodies with particular expertise in asylum law and practice. Through his assigned counsel,
the author was invited to consult and comment on the records of the interviews, as well as to
lodge appeals. He thus had the opportunity to present his requests. The migration authorities
had sufficient evidence to make an informed, transparent and reasonable assessment of the
risks associated with returning the author to Burundi. There is no reason to conclude that the
domestic decisions were erroneous, arbitrary or unjust. Referring to the findings in the
domestic decisions, the State Party observes that the author only made claims relating to his
political activities after the second expulsion order had become final, in 2019. Those claims
were examined by both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court.
4.8
With regard to article 13 of the Covenant, in response to the author’s allegations that
the domestic proceedings were unfair, the State Party refers to the information contained in
paragraphs 4.2–4.4. Moreover, while the author asserts that he did not have the assistance of
counsel during the suspension proceedings initiated in 2019, he did not request it. As for the
request for an oral hearing during the appeal proceedings relating to the suspension of the
removal order, such proceedings are generally conducted on the basis of written submissions.
The author’s request for a hearing was rejected as unnecessary in the circumstances of the
case. The author had ample opportunity to develop his arguments.
Author’s comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
In his comments of 11 May 2021, the author reiterates his arguments and submits that
the burden of proof should not be applied too strictly. The author waited before applying for
asylum because his partner’s application for a residence permit was still being processed.7
5.2
Contrary to his current situation, when he returned to Burundi in December 2012, that
is, before he joined the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie, the author did not fear
persecution by the Government of Burundi. Furthermore, the author’s successful integration
into Swedish society justifies the extension of his residence permit.
5.3
The Swedish Migration Agency could have asked for clarification if it wished to have
more information about the claims made by the author, who had the right to an oral hearing.
As he was not heard by the Migration Court in the context of the appeal he lodged during the
suspension proceedings, the author could not have known that the Court wished to receive
further information about his role within the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie
and the Burundian diaspora, which had sent an open letter to the President of France
protesting against the bilateral cooperation between the two countries.8 Furthermore, the
Migration Court never sought to ascertain the reasons for N’s arrest, which was itself
motivated by photographs of demonstrations in Stockholm and by his own photographs
posted on social media. The Court merely ruled that the idea that the Burundian authorities
would be interested in the author after finding a photograph of him on N’s phone was
speculative. The author took part openly in the demonstration in Sweden in 2015. All
Burundians living in Sweden and Burundi have seen the video of this demonstration, in which
he can be identified.
5.4
The author claims to be exposed to a real risk of irreparable harm, as envisaged in
articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. He reiterates that, given the political climate in Burundi and
the serious human rights violations that are being committed there, particularly against
members of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie, he could face life
imprisonment or the death penalty for his opposition activities within the party.9 The author
7 The author has produced a letter from his partner to demonstrate that their relationship is genuine.
According to the letter, the author and his partner had been together since 2012, lived together until
2012 and were planning to get married in 2022.
8 SOS Médias Burundi, “Burundi-France: Burundian diaspora living in Europe protests against
resumption of military cooperation”, 8 August 2019; International Federation for Human Rights and
Ligue ITEKA, “Repression and genocidal dynamics in Burundi”, November 2016.
9 The author has produced a certificate dated 3 May 2021, signed by the President of the Mouvement
pour la solidarité et la démocratie, who states that he has known the author as a very active member
since 2013, having met him for the first time at a meeting in Bujumbura and a second time in Sweden.
According to the letter, the author had recruited new party members in Cibitoke Province and played
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
6
GE.26-04155
further claims, with supporting photographs, that members of the diaspora close to the
Government of Burundi are spying on the activities of the opposition and its members.
Furthermore, in the author’s home province, journalists were detained for over a year for
investigating clashes between government forces and the Résistance pour un État de droit au
Burundi (Resistance for the Rule of Law in Burundi) (RED-Tabara), which the Mouvement
pour la solidarité et la démocratie reportedly supports.
State Party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits
6.
In its observations of 15 June 2021, the State Party reiterates its arguments and notes
that the author did not apply for asylum after his residence permit expired in 2016. The
authorities had, however, informed him of his right to do so. As for his relationship with his
partner, according to her letter of 2021 she does not live with the author and they are not
married.
Author’s additional comments
7.1
On 11 March 2022, the author presented three photographs taken during a gathering
held in Sweden on 4 September 2021. In the photographs, the author appears alongside the
President of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie and other party members in
Sweden. According to the author, in September 2021 the Government of Burundi issued an
international arrest warrant against two leaders of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la
démocratie. This shows that the party continues to be targeted by the Burundian authorities.
7.2
In his comments of 3 May 2022, the author asserts that the security situation for
members of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie in Burundi has not improved
and that the Burundian authorities baselessly attributed to the party a grenade attack carried
out in Bujumbura, which led to the issuance of the aforementioned arrest warrants (para. 7.1).
The authorities, however, target any member of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la
démocratie, in Burundi or abroad. Several expatriate members of the party have been killed
on their return to Burundi. The author notes that, in its decision of 17 January 2020, the
Migration Court stated that it did not doubt his membership of the Mouvement pour la
solidarité et la démocratie, his political activities in Sweden or the fact that this information
is known to the Burundian authorities. The author disputes whether the State Party has
demonstrated that his account lacks credibility. He asserts that the State Party’s observations
of 15 June 2021 contain no new evidence, that his communication meets all the admissibility
criteria and that he has provided sufficient information on the personal, foreseeable and real
risk he faces of being subjected to treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant in
Burundi.
7.3
In his comments of 28 June, 25 and 31 July and 18 September 2024, the author
informed the Committee of the status of his second asylum proceedings in Sweden. On
12 September 2024, these proceedings ended with the denial of his request for leave to appeal
to the Migration Court of Appeal. According to the author, errors were made during the
proceedings and the State Party should guarantee him a properly conducted procedure. For
example, the decision to reject the author’s request for an oral hearing is disgraceful, as the
authorities are aware of the risks the author faces if returned to Burundi. The Migration Court
wrongly stated that the situation in Burundi had normalized, even though there are more than
300,000 Burundian refugees in neighbouring countries. The fate of the members of the
Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie in Burundi is clearly outlined in the letter from
its Secretary-General that the author transmitted to the Migration Court. Furthermore, the
Migration Court rejected the supporting documents provided by the author on the grounds
that they had not been translated into Swedish. The Court did not demonstrate in what way
the author’s statements concerning his cousin, N, were inconsistent. At the same time, the
Court stated that the documents and video concerning N’s situation could not be accessed
because they had not been translated.
an important role in mobilizing the masses during the protests in Stockholm against President
Nkurunziza. He had also openly protested against the Government. In Stockholm, he recruited new
members.
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
GE.26-04155
7
State Party’s additional observations
8.1
In its observations of 18 November 2024, the State Party notes that, following the
filing of the second asylum application on 28 April 2023, the Swedish Migration Agency
conducted an asylum interview lasting more than two hours with the author on 1 June 2023,
in the presence of his assigned counsel and an interpreter, whose words he confirmed he
understood. The record of the interview was then sent to the author’s counsel.
8.2
Through counsel, the author was invited to examine the record and submit written
comments thereon; he was also invited to submit written comments and make appeals during
two lengthy asylum proceedings. It is clear from this context that the author had ample
opportunity to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his asylum
application and to plead his case in writing, and orally, before the Swedish Migration Agency.
8.3
With regard to the author’s argument that the Migration Court did not appreciate the
generalized risk faced by members of opposition parties in Burundi, the Court noted that,
according to reports on the situation in Burundi, civil rights were severely restricted but
violence against members of the opposition had diminished since the period between 2015
and 2020. It was also noted that the relevant reports did not indicate that members of the
Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie were at risk of persecution in Burundi solely
because of their membership of that party. In addition, a high-ranking member of the party
had been released by the authorities in 2021 following his arrest, thanks to political pressure.
8.4
With regard to the alleged personal threat, the Migration Court did not dispute the
author’s support for and involvement in the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie.
However, it found that the author had not plausibly demonstrated that his political activities
were known to the Burundian authorities. Apart from an anonymous threatening phone call
several years earlier, the author had not personally received any real threats.
8.5
The Migration Court also questioned the evidence presented in support of the arrest
of the author’s cousin, N. In this regard, the Court noted that the evidence presented contained
contradictory information regarding the cousin’s name. Furthermore, the author’s oral
statements were not aligned with the evidence presented. The information regarding the issue
of whether N had been forced to pay bribes to escape from prison or had been released after
a trial was thus inconsistent. In addition, the claim that N had reported the author to the
Burundian authorities was considered to be second-hand information. As for his cousin, N,
according to a published report, an appeals court in Burundi had acquitted him. Furthermore,
the evidence provided by the author regarding his relationship with N and the reason for N’s
incarceration, among other things, had limited probative value. The Swedish Migration
Agency had requested evidence regarding N’s detention on a number of occasions, the author
having stated that he was in contact with N and that N’s detention was widely documented
on social media. Despite this, the author had not provided any substantial additional evidence.
The author’s allegation that the Burundian authorities had identified him and targeted him as
an opposition supporter on the basis of photographs on N’s phone was vague and based on
second-hand information.
8.6
Furthermore, the Migration Court noted that no other evidence had been produced to
suggest that the author’s political activities for the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la
démocratie were known in Burundi or that dissenting political opinions had been ascribed to
him. The Swedish Migration Agency found that the risk associated with RED-Tabara was
speculative and not based on concrete evidence.
8.7
In addition, the migration authorities found the author’s statements to be contradictory
and lacking in detail. In comparing the author’s arguments in the previous asylum
proceedings with his new arguments, the Migration Court also noted a certain lack of
credibility overall.
8.8
In summary, the Migration Court did not consider that the author had plausibly
demonstrated that he was genuinely at risk in Burundi and that this risk was such that he
needed international protection. The Swedish Migration Agency and the domestic migration
courts are specialized bodies and have particular expertise in asylum law and practice, and
the author has not demonstrated that the assessments carried out were arbitrary or amounted
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
8
GE.26-04155
to a manifest error or denial of justice.10 The author is clearly attempting to use the Committee
as an appellate court. However, that is not the Committee’s role.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
9.1
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.
9.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, read in conjunction with the State Party’s reservation thereto, that the same matter
is not being examined, nor has been examined, under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.11
9.3
In accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee must not
consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual
has exhausted all available domestic remedies.12 The Committee notes that the author has
filed several unsuccessful applications and appeals concerning his request for protection in
Sweden. After the previous removal order concerning him expired in 2023, the author filed
a new asylum application, which was definitively rejected in 2024. For that reason, the
Committee considers that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not constitute an
obstacle to its examination of the communication.
9.4
The Committee notes the State Party’s position that the communication is
inadmissible because it is insufficiently substantiated. The Committee recalls its general
comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States
Parties to the Covenant, according to which States Parties have an obligation not to extradite,
deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial
grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm,13 such as that contemplated
by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.14 The Committee further recalls that the risk must be
personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish the
existence of a real risk of irreparable harm. In making such an assessment, all relevant facts
and circumstances must be taken into consideration, including the general human rights
situation in the author’s country of origin.
9.5
As a preliminary matter, the Committee notes that, since the removal order that
formed the basis for the initial submission has now expired, the issues relating to that order
are, as far as the risk alleged by the author is concerned, moot. The Committee will therefore
examine the risk alleged in the context of the second asylum proceedings, which were
completed in 2024. In his second asylum application, the author argued that he was at risk of
persecution in Burundi because of his involvement in the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la
démocratie and his sympathy, real and presumed, for opposition groups.
9.6
The Committee notes that the author was represented during the second asylum
proceedings by counsel assigned to him and that interpretation services were provided. In
their decisions, the Swedish migration authorities did not dispute the fact that the author had
been a member of the Mouvement pour la solidarité et la démocratie since 2013, nor that he
had taken part in a political demonstration in Sweden in 2015. They examined reports
concerning the general situation in Burundi for dissidents and responded to the author’s
arguments concerning his personal situation. They observed that the author had never been
specifically targeted by the Burundian authorities for his political involvement. Apart from
an anonymous call several years earlier, the author had not received any threats, and his
10 See, for example, X v. Norway, para. 7.5; and Z v. Australia (CCPR/C/111/D/2049/2011), para. 9.4.
11 By this reservation, the State Party excludes the Committee’s competence in relation to cases where
the same matter has been or is being examined under another procedure of international investigation
or settlement.
12 See, for example, K.Q. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/144/D/4296/2023), para. 6.3.
13 General comment No. 31 (2004), para. 12.
14 See also, for example, Z v. Denmark (CCPR/C/137/D/2795/2016), para. 6.5.
CCPR/C/145/D/3727/2020
GE.26-04155
9
allegations concerning the risk he faced were based on speculation. Furthermore, the
migration authorities found his statements to be vague and contradictory on certain issues.
They considered that the available information did not indicate that the author’s political role
and his participation in a demonstration in Sweden in 2015 would have aroused the interest
of the Government of Burundi. The Swedish Migration Agency also examined the author’s
argument concerning his ties to Sweden, where he had no family, and provided several
reasons to justify its conclusion that his ties to Burundi were considerably stronger.
9.7
In the light of the foregoing and the facts set out in paragraph 8.1–8.7, the Committee
considers that the information at its disposal shows that the State Party took into account all
the elements available, including the human rights situation in Burundi and the evidence
provided by the author in support of his allegations, when evaluating the risk he faced and,
nevertheless, for the aforementioned reasons, found that the author had not shown that, if
returned to Burundi, he would be at risk of being ill-treated or killed. The Committee
considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State Party’s
authorities and with their decisions, he has not shown that these decisions were arbitrary or
amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee considers that
the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated for
the purposes of admissibility and are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
9.8
With regard to article 13 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that this provision
does not apply to aliens who have stayed longer than the law or their permits allow, and that
the Covenant does not recognize the right of aliens to enter or reside in the territory of a State
Party.15 However, in certain circumstances, an alien may enjoy the protection of the Covenant
even in relation to entry or residence, for example, when considerations of non-discrimination,
prohibition of inhuman treatment and respect for family life arise.16 The author argues that
his two-year residence permit, which expired in 2016, should have been renewed on the basis
of his relationship with his partner. The Committee notes the State Party’s observation that
the author and his partner were not married and did not live together (as had also been
indicated by the author’s partner in her letter of 2021) and that their statements to the
migration authorities differed on several material points having to do with the circumstances
of their relationship and their respective lives. The Committee considers that the difficulties
of interpretation and comprehension alleged by the author are not sufficient to justify these
discrepancies. In addition, while the author claims that he did not have the assistance of
counsel during the 2019 suspension proceedings, the State Party indicates that he did not
request such assistance. Furthermore, although the author complains that there was no
hearing during the suspension proceedings, the Committee notes that these proceedings are
usually conducted on the basis of written submissions. The Swedish Migration Agency had
informed the author that he had the right to submit a new asylum application, during the
proceedings relating to which he would have been heard. In the light of the foregoing and
taking into account its conclusions in paragraphs 9.6 and 9.7, the Committee considers that
the author’s claim under article 13 of the Covenant is insufficiently substantiated; it is
therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
10.
The Committee therefore decides:
(a)
That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional
Protocol;
(b)
That the present decision shall be communicated to the State Party and to the
author.
15 General comment No. 15 (1986), para. 5.
16 Ibid.