Deportation of a person belonging to Tutsi ethnicity to Burundi

Facts

The author is a Burundian of Tutsi ethnicity and is a member of an opposition political party in Burundi. He was also an employee of a popular media outlet in Burundi. On a search of the author’s home the police found a photo of the author with the president of the opposition party, which led to the author’s persecution by the National Intelligence Service. Subsequently, in 2015 the author also took part in protests against the then Burundi President’s bid for a third presidential term. Post this, the author worked for the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in Burundi. Subsequently, fearing for his safety after a staff member of the IOM was killed, in 2017 the author decided to leave Burundi and settle in Sweden, where he continued his political activities as a member of the opposition party.

The author applied for asylum in Sweden, but the Swedish Migration Agency rejected his application and decided to expel him to Burundi noting that the general situation in Burundi and the author’s individual circumstances, despite him being Tutsi did not necessitate the grant of asylum. The author claims that his return to Burundi would violate his right to life, security, and liberty and right against torture under articles 6, 7, 9 and 13 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee took note of para. 12 of its General Comment No. 31 which imposed a general legal obligation on States parties to the Covenant not to extradite, deport, expel, or remove a person from its territory when there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of irreparable harm as under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee, contrary to the author’s claims, considered that the fact that author stayed in Burundi for around 2 years after his participation in the protests against the Presidential bid and faced no persecution contradicts his present claims that he would be at risk on his return to Burundi, and that a mere risk of imprisonment cannot be claimed as a violation of article 9.

Furthermore, the Committee held, contrary to the author’s argument regarding procedural errors and non-consideration of material evidence by the Swedish Migration authorities, that the author had not sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 13. Moreover, the Committee held that the Swedish authorities had considered all claims of the author and that the author had not demonstrated that the Swedish authorities acted arbitrarily or engaged in conduct amounting to manifest denial of justice. For these reasons the Committee decided the communication as inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.