Sweden - Migration Court of Appeal, 20 January 2012, UM 4609-10

Facts:

The applicant applied for asylum in Sweden on the 9 November 2009. He claimed that he was part of a human rights group in Angola documenting violations against a certain ethnic group. As a result, he had been arrested and tortured by the Angolan military. The Migration Board denied the application on the grounds of credibility. In the appeal to the Migration Court the applicant presented new information and submitted a medical statement supporting his claim that he had injuries that could have been induced by torture. The applicant also referred to the ECtHR case of R.C. v Sweden and the Court’s statement on the duty to investigate claims of having been subjected to torture presented in an asylum application.

The Migration Court denied the appeal on grounds of credibility and due to the fact that the medical statement was considered lacking on important points. The applicant appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal.

Decision & reasoning:

The primary reason for the Migration Court of Appeal to address this appeal was the judgment of the ECtHR in R.C. v. Sweden. In R.C. v. Sweden the applicant’s claims were to an extent supported by the medical evidence presented and the COI on the situation of dissidents in Iran also supported the case. The ECtHR stated that as the applicant had presented enough evidence, the burden of proof was now on the State. It was therefore, according to the ECtHR, for the State to show that R.C. would not risk being subjected to treatment violating article 3 of the ECHR, including the execution of an order of expulsion. 

The Migration Court of Appeal found that the present case had several similarities to R.C. v. Sweden. The Court found that even if there were issues as regards the applicant’s credibility they were not enough for his claims, and supporting information, to be considered lacking in credibility as a whole. The medical statement presented by the applicant was, the Court found, sufficient for the Migration Court to have procured an expert statement regarding the injuries in order to assess the credibility of the applicant’s claims.

In its assessment, the Court discussed international law on the prohibition of torture and how it relates to asylum seekers, as well as how such claims should be assessed. The Court then continued to discuss the impact of R.C. v. Sweden on the scope of the duty to investigate claims and emphasised that member states of the Council of Europe are obliged to comply with the judgments of the ECtHR. The Court finally stated the kind of investigation that should have been undertaken by the Migration Court did not fall within the competence of the Migration Court of Appeal.

Outcome:

The Migration Court of Appeal remitted the case to the Migration Court.