ECtHR - A.G.A.M., D.N.M., M.K.N., M.Y.H. and Others, N.A.N.S., N.M.B., N.M.Y. and Others and S.A. v. Sweden, Application Nos. 71680/10, 28379/11, 72413/10, 50859/10, 68411/10, 68335/10, 72686/10 and 66523/10

The ten Applicants, originally from Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk (Iraq), were all failed asylum seekers residing in Sweden. Two Applicants, D.N.M. and S.A. allege that, if deported, they would risk becoming victims of an honour-related crime due to family disapproval of their relationships with women. D.N.M. is a Sunni Muslim and Kurd from Kirkuk who alleges that he was persecuted after being discovered in a secret relationship with a young Sunni woman. He says he was attacked by her brothers and had his shop burnt down. He also alleges that his father, also persecuted, granted permission for him to be killed. His asylum application in Sweden was rejected due to the possibility of relocation to other Iraqi provinces. S.A., a Sunni Muslim, alleges that he was in a relationship with a Shiah Muslim woman who was killed due to family disapproval. He fled threats and harassment but had his asylum request rejected due to a presumption that the woman’s death restored honour between the families. D.N.M. and S.A. both submit that their return to Iraq would constitute a violation of Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (inhuman or degrading treatment). The other Applicants are Christians and argue that, if deported, they would be persecuted as members of a religious minority. In five cases, death threats and harassment for money by Islamic groups are alleged. In some cases, kidnapping of the applicant and murder, injury and abduction of family members is alleged. One applicant is a professor from Baghdad University who alleges family kidnappings based on his involvement with a committee, formerly headed by a now murdered colleague. In one case, asylum is also claimed on account of family members residing in Sweden, and, in another, the applicant, a homosexual, alleges that his partner was killed by the Mujahedin. Between 2009 and 2012, all of the Christian Applicants’ requests for asylum were rejected mostly on the basis that the security situation in Iraq had improved since the time on which their applications were based. In the family member case, the ties were not considered strong enough, and the Swedish authorities doubted the claims of the homosexual applicant due to the late stage in proceedings at which this claim was raised. The university professor’s risk was deemed to be minimal due to his limited involvement and the passage of time since the committee’s activity. In the case of one applicant, it was found that his youth and fitness would enable him to relocate to the Kurdistan region away from the accepted conflict and lack of protection in Mosul. The Christian Applicants complained that they were at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if returned to Iraq.