European Court Rules Deportation of Afghan Migrant from Sweden Violates Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights has declared that deporting an Afghan migrant from Sweden, considering his personal circumstances and the general situation in Afghanistan, could violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article prohibits any inhuman or degrading treatment.
In a judgment issued on Friday, March 27, the court stated that if the individual is deported to Afghanistan, due to his Hazara ethnic identity, long-term residence in Sweden, and adaptation to Western lifestyle, he would face a real risk of ill-treatment.
The migrant, identified in court documents by the initials “D.M,” has applied for residence in Sweden several times since 2015 but has not obtained a permit. In August 2023, he appealed to the court under Article 3 of the European Convention, warning that his deportation would expose him to serious risk.
After reviewing the case, the court announced that Swedish authorities had not conducted a comprehensive and cumulative assessment of all relevant factors in evaluating potential risks. According to the court, the determination of a “real risk of ill-treatment” should be based on a combination of the individual’s personal circumstances and the general conditions in the destination country.
The ruling noted that although the security and human rights situation in Afghanistan is deeply concerning, this alone does not automatically mean that any deportation to the country would violate Article 3.
The court also stated that despite reports on the worsening conditions for Hazaras, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that all members of this ethnic group are systematically exposed to treatment violating Article 3. However, in this particular case, the appellant’s Hazara ethnicity was considered a factor increasing the risk.
Judges added that the individual had adapted to life in Sweden over the past decade and exhibited behaviors possibly seen as violations of religious and social norms in Afghanistan—a factor that, given the Taliban government’s strict and repressive policies and severe punishments for non-compliance, could put him at greater risk.
In its final conclusion, the court emphasized that “the cumulative effect of the claimant’s personal circumstances, alongside the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, creates a real risk of ill-treatment if he is returned,” and therefore enforcing the deportation order would violate human rights obligations.
