Deportation of Ahmadi Muslims to Pakistan despite fear of religious persecution

Facts

The authors, sisters and Ahmadi Muslims from Pakistan, claim persecution due to their faith. Their grandfather, a regional Ahmadi leader, was shot and injured but later granted asylum in Sweden. Their father, a local Ahmadi leader, was stabbed in 2010. Both sisters faced harassment in school. R.M. arrived in Sweden on a student visa in 2016, followed by Q.M. in 2018. Both applied for asylum after their visas expired, but their claims were denied. Authorities acknowledged the risks faced by Ahmadi Muslims but found no individual persecution, questioning inconsistencies in their accounts. In 2020, they sought reconsideration, citing a mob attack on their family home, but discrepancies in the timing of the attack led to rejection. R.M.’s later claim that applying for a Pakistani passport would expose her to further risk was also dismissed. Their appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) was deemed inadmissible in 2021, and Q.M.’s request to suspend deportation based on R.M.’s case was denied.

The authors allege that the State party, by exposing them to a real risk of persecution as Ahmadi Muslims upon their return to Pakistan, would violate the prohibition of torture in article 7 and their right to freedom of religion under article 18 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee found the authors’ claim under article 7 of the Covenant inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol due to insufficient substantiation. While acknowledging reports of widespread human rights violations against Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan, the authors failed to demonstrate a personal and real risk of torture or ill-treatment upon return or that the Swedish authorities’ assessment had been arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

It first considered whether it was barred from examining the case under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, given the prior application to the ECtHR. Since the ECtHR had declared the case inadmissible without stating the grounds, the Committee concluded it was not precluded from reviewing the communication. The Committee also found the claim under article 18 inadmissible, as it was raised only after the initial submission, and the authors offered no valid explanation for this delay.

In evaluating the article 7 claim, the Committee emphasised that a credible risk must be supported by specific, detailed evidence. It noted inconsistencies in the authors’ accounts, including vague descriptions of threats, delays in seeking asylum, and the fact that they had not publicly practised their faith in Pakistan, unlike relatives with more prominent roles. Finally, the Committee observed that the authors had access to legal representation, interpretation, and several opportunities to present their claims, which were thoroughly assessed by the Swedish authorities. It found no indication of procedural unfairness or denial of justice.