Deportation of a whistleblower fearing retaliation

Facts

The author, a former security officer for Albania’s Republican Guard, claims he faced threats after preventing an explosion involving a high-ranking official’s car in 2013 and refusing to comply with unlawful orders. He alleges that powerful individuals, including the General Director of AntiCorruption and the Minister of the Interior, repeatedly threatened him. After his dismissal in 2014, he and his wife (D) faced daily persecution, forcing them to separate for safety. Despite attempts to seek justice, authorities failed to act.

In 2015, the author testified in court against a criminal organization with State ties, further increasing his risk. Soon after, he, D, and their child (E) fled to Sweden and applied for asylum, but their request and subsequent appeals were denied, despite the author’s claim of a credible fear of persecution. After a former Albanian prime minister publicly linked him to a political scandal in 2016, media coverage exposed his case, and his family in Albania was targeted—his brother was brutally attacked, and his parents’ home was set on fire. In March 2017, the family requested a reexamination of their asylum case based on these new threats. Following the birth of their second child (F) in November 2017, they applied for asylum on her behalf. However, both applications were rejected, with the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal refusing to overturn the decisions. Despite these developments, Swedish authorities rejected his request for asylum re-examination in 2017 and denied a separate asylum application for his second child (F) in 2018.

The author claims that the deportation of him, D, E and F by the State party to Albania would violate article  7, as he would face cruel and inhuman treatment by government and non-government actors. Additionally, the State party by making procedural errors violated the family’s right to a fair hearing under article 2 (1) and (3) and 14 (1) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee declared the claims under article 2 (1) and (3) to be inadmissible, as the provision sets out general obligations for States parties and can not be invoked separately. The Committee deemed the claim under article 14 (1) inadmissible ratione materiae, as extradition, expulsion, and deportation do not constitute rights and obligations in a suit at law but fall under article 13, which governs procedures for an alien’s obligatory departure.

The Committee found the author’s claim under article  7 of the Covenant inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. It reasoned that the Swedish migration authorities thoroughly assessed the family’s protection claims across multiple proceedings from 2015 to 2022, providing the author with legal representation, interpretation services, and opportunities to present his case. The Committee determined that the author failed to demonstrate arbitrariness or procedural errors in the domestic authorities’ decisions. Additionally, it noted inconsistencies in the author’s statements, the lack of evidence supporting his alleged threats, and the absence of recent harm. Given these factors, the Committee concluded that the claim did not meet the high threshold required to establish a real risk of irreparable harm.