Inadmissibility in a case of deportation from Sweden to Liberia

Facts

The author is a Liberian national whose application for asylum has been denied in Sweden. The author claims to have been the vice president of a Liberian organization which was instrumental in working towards the removal of the Speaker of the House of Representatives for his alleged involvement in a corruption scandal. The author claims to have played an active role in the same, which attracted threats against him and his family, due to which he fled to Sweden where he subsequently applied for asylum. He claims that while he was in Sweden, his uncle’s home was burned down, and his mother was murdered. The Swedish Migration Agency rejected the author’s application for asylum and this decision was upheld by the Migration Court noting that the author’s claims were vague and lacked credibility and detail.

The Migration Court also noted that civil society activity in Liberia was not restricted and the author not lodging a complaint with the police regarding his mother’s murder also pointed towards lack of credibility of such claims. Furthermore, the Court held that authorities in Liberia were generally not unable or unwilling to protect its citizens and that the author had insufficiently substantiated that he would lack protection of the State on his return to Liberia. The author in his communication claims that this violates his right under article 7 of the Covenant as he would be subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if he were to return to Liberia.

Admissibility

The Committee noted that the author in his communication challenges the assessment of evidence and factual conclusions reached by the State party’s authorities but fails to substantiate as to why such an assessment is arbitrary or amounts to a denial of justice. The Committee held that the author failed to fully substantiate his claim that there would be a violation of article 7 of the Covenant on his return to Liberia. For these reasons the Committee decided the author’s communication as inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.