Sweden – Migration Court, 2 December 2010, UM 10296-10

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
02-12-2010
Citation:
UM 10296-10
Court Name:
Migration Court in Stockholm
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
Sweden - Utlänningslagen (Aliens Act) (2005:716) - Chapter 4 Section 2
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

When medico-legal evidence of torture is provided by specialists and found credible it is incumbent on the Migration Board to put forward evidence that there is no further risk of torture in the relevant country. 

Facts: 

A man from Libya was falsely accused of compromising a girl’s honour. The real perpetrator was a man from a high status family who knew the girl’s family, and was of a similar social standing. The applicant was captured and subjected to torture. He was later assisted by his brother to escape from Libya. In the first instance it was found that his account lacked credibility. The only evidence of torture presented was notes from the applicant's medical journal, which were dismissed as insufficient. At the appeal stage the Migration Court gave its approval for medico-legal examinations to be carried out.

Decision & Reasoning: 

During the oral hearing the Court found the applicant’s account of his torture credible and consistent with the medico-legal evidence. Referring to the ECtHR judgement R.C v Sweden (application no.41827/07) 9th March 2010 the Court stated that when an applicant has satisfied the burden of proof that he has already been tortured, the burden of proof then rests on the state to dispel any doubts whether there is a future risk that the complainant will be tortured again, contrary to Art 3 of European Convention. The Migration Court found that the Migration Board had not shown that the applicant, on return to his country, would not be likely to be subjected to torture again.

The Migration Court held that they could not exclude the possibility that there is a future risk to the complainant on return to Libya where he might again be subjected to torture.

Outcome: 

Protection granted on subsidiary grounds.