Risk of deportation and indirect refoulement of a Burundian asylum-seeker from Sweden to Zambia

Facts

The author, Z.D., a Burundian national born in Rwanda, submitted the communication on behalf of herself and her daughter, M.M., born in Sweden in 2020. Having fled Burundi due to political persecution, she later traveled from Zambia to Sweden and now faces deportation to Zambia, where she fears imprisonment and forced removal to Burundi, risking torture, rape, or death. She argues that she has no real ties to Zambia and that asylum-seekers there face inhumane conditions, including overcrowded detention and lack of protection. Z.D. claims she was targeted by the Imbonerakure, the ruling party’s youth militia, after her uncle, a high-ranking general, opposed the President’s third-term bid and was linked to a failed 2015 coup. Facing threats and attacks, she fled to Zambia, where she obtained a Zambian passport with assistance and used it to apply for a Swedish visa. After arriving in Sweden in 2015, she sought asylum as a Burundian citizen, submitting identity documents and undergoing an interview in Kirundi, a language not spoken in Zambia. However, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected her claim in 2017, determining she was Zambian based on visa records and a Zambian national registration card. The Migration Court upheld this in 2018, dismissing her Burundian documents as easily falsifiable and of low probative value. A later attempt to prove her Burundian identity with an expired passport was also rejected.

The author alleges violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant arguing that Sweden failed to assess the real risk of her being removed from Zambia to Burundi and the possibility that she would face serious harm if returned to either country.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication admissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, rejecting the State party’s argument that the author had not exhausted domestic remedies. It also dismissed the claim that the communication was manifestly ill-founded, considering that the author had sufficiently substantiated her fear of removal to Burundi following deportation to Zambia and the risk of inhumane treatment if detained in Zambia.

Merits

The Committee found violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, concluding that Sweden failed to conduct an adequate risk assessment before ordering Z.D.’s deportation. Regarding article 6, the Committee recalled that any removal exposing an individual to a real risk of death constitutes a violation. It found that Sweden had not assessed the risk of Z.D. ‘s onward removal from Zambia to Burundi, despite her claims of political persecution and the lack of protection for Burundian asylum-seekers in Zambia. Further, on article 7, the Committee reiterated that States must not deport individuals where substantial grounds exist to believe they face a real risk of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. It found that Sweden dismissed key evidence supporting Z.D. ‘s Burundian identity, including her Kirundi-language asylum interview and official documents, and failed to consider the dangers she would face if imprisoned or removed to Burundi. This lack of individualised assessment violated article 7.

Recommendations

The State party should:

• (a) reassess the author’s and her daughter’s asylum claims in compliance with its obligations under the Covenant;
• (b) provide adequate compensation for the violations suffered; (c) implement safeguards to prevent similar violations in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 16 January 2025