Alzery v. Sweden

Comm. No. 1416/2005, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (2006)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Alzery v. Sweden

United Nations Human Rights Committee
Comm. No. 1416/2005, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (2006)

Facts

Mohammed Alzery (plaintiff) was an Egyptian national who applied for asylum in Sweden (defendant) after being tried and convicted in absentia by an Egyptian military court of belonging to a terrorist group. The material facts in Alzery’s case were the same as those presented in Agiza v. Sweden, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (2005), for which Sweden was in violation of the Convention against Torture. Like Agiza, Alzery was denied asylum on national-security grounds despite the known risk upon refoulement, based solely on diplomatic assurances from Egypt that Alzery would be given a fair trial and treated humanely. The United States Central Intelligence Agency offered Sweden a plane to facilitate transport. Ten American and Egyptian security personnel were then allowed to perform a security check on Alzery at the airport prior to boarding with no intervention by the Swedish security police. The security check included removing Alzery’s clothes with scissors, searching his body, handcuffing him to his feet, inserting a tranquilizer into his rectum, placing him in a diaper, and clothing him in overalls with a loose hood over his head. Alzery later alleged that he was tortured with electrical shocks and treated inhumanely while imprisoned in Egypt. The language of Egypt’s diplomatic assurances on which Sweden relied contained no mechanism for monitoring Alzery’s treatment. Swedish officials did visit Alzery monthly; however, the visits started five weeks after imprisonment, were never in private, and never included medical personnel. Alzery’s attorney filed a complaint alleging violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the covenant).

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership