Deportation to Burundi of a member of the Movement for Solidarity and Democracy

Facts

The author of the communication is C.C.N., a national of Burundi. As a member of the Movement for Solidarity and Democracy, he participated in demonstrations against the government. Because of his participation in the protests, the author was summoned by the police for questioning and received telephone threats by pro-government militias. Out of fear of these threats, he asked his boss to transfer him to a different city. In 2017, a group of people looked for him at his new workplace. The author then left Burundi to visit a friend in Sweden. While he was abroad, he was informed that an arrest warrant had been issued against him. He applied for asylum in Sweden, but the authorities rejected his application for lack of credibility. The author alleges that by deporting him to Burundi the State party would expose him to a real risk of arbitrary arrest, torture and death, in violation of articles 2 (effective remedy), 6 (right to life), 7 (prohibition of torture), 8 (prohibition of slavery), 9 (arbitrary detention), 13 (expulsion of aliens), and 14 (right to a fair trial).

Admissibility

The Committee notes that, although the author alleges a violation of articles 2, 8, 9, 13, and 14, he has not provided any information or evidence to support his allegations. Therefore, such claims are inadmissible. With regard to the claims under articles 6 and 7, the Committee recalls that it is for the State party to examine the facts of the case, unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The Committee observes that the Swedish authorities took into account, in their assessment, all the available evidence, and that they indicated multiple inconsistencies in the author’s allegations. Since the author has not shown that the decisions of the State party’s authorities were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice, the claims under articles 6 and 7 are insufficiently substantiated and thus inadmissible.

Implementation

By: Giacomo Bruno