CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

GE.26-04168 (E) 010526 040526

Human Rights Committee

Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol,

concerning communication No. 4181/2022*, **

Communication submitted by:

D (represented by counsel, Miran Kakaee)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Sweden

Date of communication:

23 June 2022 (initial submission)

Document reference:

Decision taken pursuant to rules 92 and 97 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 12 July 2022 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

16 March 2026

Subject matter:

Deportation to Türkiye with an alleged risk of

torture based on transgender identity, political

and advocacy activities and Kurdish ethnicity

Procedural issues:

Same matter – another procedure of international

investigation or settlement; substantiation of

claims

Substantive issues:

Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment; gender identity/sexual orientation;

LGBTIQ+; non-refoulement; torture; political

activities

Article of the Covenant:

7

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 5 (2) (a)

1.1

The author of the communication is D, a national of Türkiye born in 1991. She submits

that, by deporting her to Türkiye, the State Party would violate her rights under article 7 of

the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 23 March 1976.

The author is represented by counsel.

* 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/4181/2022

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

5 May 2026

Original: English

CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

2

GE.26-04168

1.2

On 12 July 2022, 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 to Türkiye while her case was under

consideration by the Committee.

1.3

On 10 February 2023, the State Party requested that the interim measures be lifted.

On 30 January 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.

Facts as submitted by the author

2.1

The author is a transgender woman of Kurdish ethnicity. During her early childhood

in Türkiye, she felt like a girl and did not identify with traditional gender norms. She

underwent hormone treatment and applied for gender recognition as a female. The authorities

in Türkiye sent the confirmation of her application to her family’s address, instead of her

own address. Her family members then held a meeting and decided that she would be killed.

They then threatened the author.

2.2

In 2015, the author began working in Ankara for the non-governmental organization

Pink Life, where she advocated for the rights of transgender individuals and organized the

yearly Pride parades in Ankara and Istanbul. In 2015, she became a board member of

Amnesty International. She has written articles for another non-governmental organization,

Kaos GL, concerning police brutality against LGBTQ persons.

2.3

During the Pride parade of 2017 in Türkiye, the author was detained by police and

was physically assaulted during her detention. She was subsequently prosecuted for having

participated in an unlawful assembly.

2.4

From 2012 to 2014, the author was a guerrilla fighter and a member of the banned

Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). A video of her was circulated online depicting her dancing

a Kurdish dance to a pro-PKK song. An LGBTQ organization called AK LGBTI accused the

author on social media of being a sympathizer of PKK. The author was questioned by police

about the video.

2.5

The author is also an active member of the pro-Kurdish People’s Democratic Party

(HDP). In conjunction with her activities for that party, the author gave a speech before the

Parliament of Türkiye after the killing of Hande Kader, a transgender woman and activist.

The author frequently attended meetings with representatives of the People’s Democratic

Party regarding the rights of LGBTQ persons.

2.6

In 2017, the author entered Sweden and applied for asylum. On 24 April 2019 and

30 October 2019, the Migration Agency held two interviews with the author, in the presence

of her counsel and an interpreter. The author was asked about her reasons for seeking asylum.

2.7

On 3 April 2020, the Migration Agency rejected the author’s asylum application,

making the following findings: there was no specific criminalization or prohibition against

LGBTQ persons in Türkiye, although certain provisions of criminal law (e.g. concerning

“unnatural sexual behaviour”) could be used against them; there were legal avenues for

addressing harassment or violence against LGBTQ persons, including by the police; while

discrimination and stigmatization affected LGBTQ persons in Türkiye, those circumstances

were not of such intensity as to amount to persecution; country reports did not indicate that

the authorities were unable or unwilling to offer protection to LGBTQ persons; and the

general situation for persons of Kurdish ethnicity in Türkiye did not constitute a general need

to grant them international protection.

2.8

The Migration Agency noted that neither of the organizations that the author had been

working for in Türkiye were illegal and that the author had not held positions of leadership

in them. Although some of her employment activities could be described as critical of the

Government of Türkiye, the author had had open contact with the authorities in the course of

her work and had openly participated in public gatherings and demonstrations. That

suggested that she could not have felt a fear of serious repressive measures from the

authorities at the time.

CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

GE.26-04168

3

2.9

Regarding the author’s statement that, in 2017, she had participated in an unlawful

demonstration, the Migration Agency noted her assertion that, when the police asked her to

disperse, she had not done so, following which the police had intervened. According to the

Migration Agency, it could not be assumed that the actions of the police represented a

punishment for the author’s previous political activities. Moreover, the rejection of the

request to hold the demonstration did not suggest that the author was personally of interest

to the authorities on account of her political activities. After the demonstration, the author

had remained in Türkiye for three months without encountering any problems.

2.10

The Migration Agency considered that, although the author had been accused of

supporting PKK on social media, her accuser was not a representative of the Government.

Furthermore, the author had remained in Türkiye for approximately a year and a half after

the accusation was made. She had not provided sufficient evidence that the authorities

suspected her of supporting PKK or were aware of her previous membership in PKK.

2.11

The Migration Agency noted the author’s assertion that she had appeared in election

posters of the People’s Democratic Party during the elections of 2015. However, she had not

shown that she had an official position or a prominent voice within the party. There was no

evidence that she was sought for any alleged crime in Türkiye. The author had not plausibly

demonstrated that the authorities in Türkiye suspected or accused her of any illegal political

affiliation or that she would be of interest to the authorities on account of any other activism.

She could reasonably be expected to turn to the authorities for protection from individual

threats.

2.12

The Migration Agency observed that the author had been able to obtain a passport in

mid-2017 and had left Türkiye lawfully using a visa in her national passport, about two years

after having shown support for the People’s Democratic Party. The author had not credibly

explained why she would have been issued a passport and been allowed to leave the country

if the authorities harboured such grave suspicions about her. While the author asserted that a

travel ban had only been applied to suspected government critics in 2018, she had not

provided any source for that assertion. Country reports indicated that the travel ban had in

fact been brought into effect before then. Country information also indicated that the

authorities in Türkiye did not issue passports to persons subject to general security controls,

and that persons accused of terrorism or opposition to the Government had considerable

difficulties in travelling abroad.

2.13

The author appealed the decision of the Migration Agency to the Migration Court.

She was represented by counsel of her own choosing. The Migration Court denied her request

for an oral hearing. The author raised new information and evidence in her appeal. She stated,

for example, that two of her friends had been detained in connection with the so-called

Kobane protests in 2014, and that she had criticized the Government of Türkiye during

interviews about the protests. The author also stated that she had received new threats from

her family.

2.14

On 15 December 2020, the Migration Court rejected the author’s appeal. It did not

question that the author had been politically active in favour of the rights of women and

transgender persons. Similarly, it did not question her participation in protests or the unlawful

assembly in 2017. However, all of those events had taken place several years earlier, and

there was no indication that the author had been subjected to anything untoward in Türkiye

because of those events, despite the fact that she had previously been politically active for

several years. While she claimed to be suspected of membership in PKK, she had never been

interrogated, summoned by the police or formally notified of suspicions of such membership

in Türkiye. The Migration Court noted again that the author had been able to obtain a passport

and leave the country without any problems.

2.15

In relation to her family, the Migration Court considered that the author could seek

protection from the authorities. The Migration Court did not call into question the author’s

claim that people she knew had been arrested in Türkiye after her arrival in Sweden. However,

it noted that no objective or specific circumstances had emerged to suggest that, in a

forward-looking assessment, the author would attract the attention of the authorities in

Türkiye or would be subjected to any ill-treatment because of her previous political

engagement. It also had not been shown that the author had such strong links to the people

CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

4

GE.26-04168

who had been detained that she would risk attracting attention because of those links. Nor

were there any objective or specific circumstances to suggest that the author’s activities in

Sweden had come to the attention of the authorities in Türkiye. The People’s Democratic

Party was a lawful political opposition party with representatives in Parliament. The author

did not have a formal or prominent role within the party. She had not been prosecuted or

convicted for participating in the unlawful demonstration of 2017.

2.16

The Migration Court responded to the author’s claims regarding the risk that she

would face in relation to her gender identity. The Migration Court did not question her gender

identity as a woman and noted that discrimination and harassment of transgender and

LGBTIQ persons existed in Türkiye. However, country information indicated that the

situation in and of itself did not constitute grounds for international protection. Therefore, the

author’s personal circumstances had to be assessed. The claims relating to the author’s family

members concerned private individuals whose actions were not sanctioned by the authorities,

which, despite certain shortcomings, generally had the will and ability to protect inhabitants

of Türkiye against criminal acts by private individuals. The author had not plausibly

demonstrated that she could not avail herself of that protection. She had not contacted either

the police or other law enforcement authorities in Sweden to report any issues in relation to

her family. It had not been shown that the individuals who posed a threat to her had such

influence or power over her that the author would not be able to avail herself of the protection

of the authorities if she were to return to Türkiye. There was no evidence that she would be

denied assistance or treated incorrectly by the police.

2.17

The author applied to the Migration Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the

decision of the Migration Court. The author claimed that she had exited Türkiye with a

colleague from Pink Life, who had applied for and been granted asylum in Sweden. They

had applied for passports and travelled to Sweden together. The colleague had been suspected

of committing a terror-related crime in Türkiye but had been able to leave the country without

problems. The author argued that she could not reasonably be expected to turn to the

authorities in Türkiye while also having to hide her political activities and beliefs, especially

with respect to PKK. On 15 February 2021, the Migration Court of Appeal rejected the

author’s application for leave to appeal.

2.18

On 1 April 2021, the author applied to the Migration Agency for a residence permit

and the re-examination of her asylum application in the light of new circumstances

constituting an impediment to her expulsion. Her application was based on an article

published on various news sites, according to which a representative of the Justice and

Development Party (AKP) in Türkiye had accused her in the media of supporting PKK and

had stated that proof would be submitted to the authorities in Türkiye.

2.19

On 17 September 2021, the Migration Agency denied the author’s application for

re-examination. It considered that the author’s new claims were additions to and

modifications of previously examined circumstances and were not new circumstances of the

kind required by law. The author had been accused by the LGBTQ advocacy organization of

having links to PKK as early as 2016. Likewise, there were no specific indications that,

because of the article she mentioned, she would be suspected by the authorities in Türkiye of

collaborating with PKK or that she was at that time accused of any crime.

2.20

On 2 and 25 November 2021, respectively, the Migration Court and the Migration

Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Migration Agency.

2.21

On 2 June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights denied the author’s request for

interim measures and rejected her application concerning the same matter. In a single-judge

decision, the Court stated that the conditions of admissibility under articles 34 and 35 of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European

Convention on Human Rights) had not been met.

Complaint

3.1

The author submits that, by deporting her to Türkiye, the State Party would violate

her rights under article 7 of the Covenant. She faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of

being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Türkiye. The State Party’s authorities did not

contest her claim that her family members have threatened her with a so-called honour killing.

CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

GE.26-04168

5

The State Party’s authorities also did not contest her transgender identity and Kurdish

ethnicity, her political activities, the facts of her detention and assault or her membership in

the People’s Democratic Party and PKK. Members of PKK risk being persecuted if their

membership is known to the authorities in Türkiye. Supporters of the People’s Democratic

Party are of interest to the authorities in Türkiye.

3.2

LGBTQ persons are charged with crimes such as unnatural sexual behaviour and

crimes relating to the protection of families or public morals. Representatives of LGBTQ

organizations receive threats throughout the country. Police in Türkiye harass and use

unlawful violence against LGBTQ persons. They are stigmatized and subjected to

discrimination. Police and prosecutors frequently fail to pursue cases of violence against

transgender persons.

3.3

The State Party’s authorities did not take a cumulative approach to evaluating the risk

factors in her case.1 Instead, it assessed them separately and thereby rendered arbitrary

decisions that clearly violated domestic and international law.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

In its submission of 10 February 2023, the State Party maintains that the

communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol because the

European Court of Human Rights has already examined the same matter. Given the content

of the author’s application to the Court, the only possible ground of inadmissibility must have

been the manifestly ill-founded nature of the application. Such a finding would mean that the

Court sufficiently considered the merits of the application.

4.2

The communication is also without merit. The Committee has stated that there must

be substantial grounds for believing that there is a real, personal, necessary and foreseeable

risk of a violation of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant in the case of a forced return. Considerable

weight should be given to the assessment of the States Parties. The Committee is not a court

of fourth instance that should reevaluate facts and evidence de novo. The general situation in

Türkiye does not in and of itself suffice to establish that the author’s deportation would

violate article 7 of the Covenant. The Swedish Aliens Act contains provisions reflecting the

principles of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The migration authorities applied those

principles in the present case, and both the Migration Agency and the Migration Court (which

are specialized bodies with particular expertise in asylum law and practice) thoroughly

examined the author’s case.

4.3

The two interviews held by the Migration Agency with the author lasted between five

and six hours each. The minutes were communicated to the author and her public counsel.

The author confirmed that she understood the interpreter well. Through her public counsel,

the author was invited to scrutinize and submit written observations on the minutes from the

interviews conducted, and to make written submissions and appeals. She has therefore had

ample opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of her claim

and to argue her case, orally as well as in writing, before the Migration Agency and in writing

before the Migration Court. The authorities thus had sufficient information to ensure that they

had a solid basis for making a well-informed, transparent and reasonable risk assessment.

4.4

The Migration Agency referred to a report in which it was indicated that having an

LGBTQ+ identity and facing removal to Türkiye was not sufficient to warrant refugee status.2

The State Party refers to the findings of the Migration Agency described in paras. 2.7 to 2.12

above and considers that the Migration Agency did assess the alleged risk factors

cumulatively. In their decisions concerning the author’s asylum application, both the

Migration Agency and the Migration Court expressly stated that their conclusions were based

on an overall assessment of the author’s claims.

1 See also Q.A. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/127/D/3070/2017).

2 United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, “Country policy and

information note: Türkiye – sexual orientation and gender identity” (London, 2017).

CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

6

GE.26-04168

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

5.1

In her comments of 31 August 2023, the author reiterates her arguments and maintains

that it cannot be determined from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights

whether it was based on procedural or other grounds. The decision lacks reasoning and was

issued by a single judge after a short period of review.

5.2

The State Party’s assessment of the author’s participation in the Pride parade of 2017

illustrates the arbitrariness that prevailed throughout the handling of her case by the migration

authorities: because she was not personally singled out during the Pride parade, the migration

authorities considered that she was not being punished for her previous political activities. In

fact, it was clearly because of the author’s gender identity and political activities that she was

arrested and assaulted during the parade. She chose to participate in a demonstration

advocating for the rights of LGBTQ people in 2017. She was arrested, harassed and subjected

to violence because of her participation in that unlawful political activity and because of her

vulnerability as a transgender woman of Kurdish ethnicity. According to the author, the

assault clearly constituted torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention against

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Although she was

subsequently released by the authorities, she fled Türkiye only three months later because

she feared being subjected to torture or ill-treatment again.

5.3

The State Party’s authorities incorrectly assessed the severity of the situation for

LGBTQ persons in Türkiye and the real, personal and cumulative risk that the author would

face there, in particular given her status as a transgender person and public activist. Recent

country information published by the Migration Agency indicates that violence against

LGBTQ persons in Türkiye is just as frequent in larger cities as it is elsewhere. Many LGBTQ

persons choose to live in larger cities because it is easier to live anonymously in them. The

country information of the Migration Agency also indicates that representatives of LGBTQ

organizations receive threats all over Türkiye. That means that the situation for them is worse

than the situation for LGBTQ persons in general. However, the Migration Agency did not

apply that country information in its assessment of the author’s need for international

protection.

5.4

The Migration Agency also did not distinguish between different levels of risk that

may exist between LGBTQ persons of different gender identities, sexual orientations,

socioeconomic factors and ethnicities, and instead considered them as a homogenous group.

Transgender persons are among the most vulnerable, if not the most vulnerable group within

that community, because many are prostitutes and are thus easy targets for the police. Online

shaming is a method that the police use to expose and harass transgender persons in Türkiye.

Türkiye has the highest death rate for transgender persons in Europe, and many transgender

persons in Türkiye are subjected to violence by the police and the public. The Migration

Court did not address the deficiencies of the decision of the Migration Agency.

State Party’s additional observations

6.

In its additional observations of 27 March 2024, the State Party observes that, under

article 26 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the single-judge formation is one

of the four formations in which the Court may sit to consider cases brought before it.

Moreover, a request for interim measures based on an alleged risk of irreparable harm must

be handled with priority by the Court and is, accordingly, decided upon swiftly. It follows

from the practice directions of the Court that it may take a decision on admissibility of a case

at the same time as it considers a request for interim measures. Thus, neither the single-judge

formation nor the time within which the decision was taken support the author’s claim that

the same matter has not been examined by the Court. The State Party recounts the findings

of the Migration Agency and the Migration Court.

CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

GE.26-04168

7

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

7.1

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.

7.2

Under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol and the State Party’s reservation to

that provision, the Committee is precluded from examining a matter that is being examined

or has been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

The Committee notes the State Party’s position that the European Court of Human Rights

examined the same matter before issuing a decision of inadmissibility. The State Party argues

that the single-judge formation of the European Court of Human Rights is one of the

formations through which the Court takes decisions, pursuant to article 26 of the European

Convention on Human Rights. The State Party also maintains that the short time frame during

which the Court processed the author’s application reflects her request for urgent interim

measures and does not signify a lack of thoroughness by the Court. The Committee recalls

its jurisprudence in which it stated that when the European Court of Human Rights bases a

declaration of inadmissibility not solely on procedural grounds but also on grounds based to

some extent on the merits of a case, then the same matter should be deemed to have been

examined within the meaning of the respective reservations to article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional

Protocol.3 In the author’s case, the Committee notes that the decision of the European Court

of Human Rights does not set forth a specific justification for the finding of inadmissibility.

It is therefore unclear whether the decision was based on procedural or substantive grounds.4

Thus, while it has taken into account the State Party’s arguments on this issue, the Committee

is unable to conclude that the same matter has been examined by the European Court of

Human Rights. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by

article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication.

7.3

The Committee notes the author’s claim that, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the

Optional Protocol, she availed herself of all effective and available domestic remedies

through her asylum claim, request for re-examination and appeals, before submitting the

communication to the Committee and the lack of an objection by the State Party. Therefore,

the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol

have been met.

7.4

In assessing whether the communication is sufficiently substantiated for the purpose

of admissibility, 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 refers to

the obligation of States Parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person

from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk

of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (para. 12).

According to the Committee’s established jurisprudence, 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.5 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.

3 F.C.S. v. Spain (CCPR/C/140/D/4063/2021), para. 6.3; and Ehrmann v. France

(CCPR/C/138/D/3213/2018), para. 8.5.

4 R.M. and Q.M. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/141/D/4062/2021 and 4191/2022), para. 7.2; and X v. Iceland

(CCPR/C/130/D/2818/2016), para. 6.2.

5 C et al. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/141/D/3307/2019), para. 8.6; J et al. v. Sweden

(CCPR/C/140/R/2936/2017), para. 7.5; and Z and C v. Denmark (CCPR/C/137/D/2795/2016),

paras. 6.5 and 6.8.

CCPR/C/145/D/4181/2022

8

GE.26-04168

7.5

The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State Party would violate her rights

under article 7 of the Covenant by deporting her to Türkiye, where she would face torture

because of her status as a transgender woman, her Kurdish ethnicity, her membership in PKK

from 2012 to 2014, her membership in the People’s Democratic Party, her political activities,

her previous employment activities for LGBTQ advocacy organizations in Türkiye and her

family’s threats against her. The Committee also notes the author’s assertion that the State

Party’s migration authorities failed to conduct a thorough and individualized assessment of

the cumulative risk factors in her case. The Committee further notes the State Party’s

assertion that the migration authorities did analyse the alleged risk factors in a cumulative

manner, and examined all of the author’s claims in an overall assessment.

7.6

On a procedural level, the Committee notes that the author was asked about her

grounds for asylum during two lengthy interviews with the Migration Agency, with effective

interpretation and the assistance of public counsel. She obtained reasoned decisions from

both the Migration Agency and the Migration Court concerning her asylum application, and

from the Migration Agency concerning her application for re-examination based on

impediments to expulsion. While the Committee has noted the concerns that may exist for

transgender persons and persons of Kurdish ethnicity in Türkiye, the Committee finds that,

while the author disagrees with the assessment of the State Party’s authorities regarding her

claim that she would face a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the

Covenant in Türkiye, the facts before the Committee do not allow it to conclude that that

assessment was clearly arbitrary or erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice. The

Committee thus considers that the communication is insufficiently substantiated and is

therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

8.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional

Protocol;

(b)

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

author.