Repatriation of Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad Al-Zery - National and International Criticism

National and International Criticism

The Human Rights Watch published a harsh criticism of both the deportation from Sweden and the trial in 2004 in Egypt of Ahmed Agiza. This organization had a representative present in all four sittings of the trial.

The deportation only became widely known to the general public after the Swedish television network TV4 in its series Kalla fakta (Cold Facts) in Mai 2004 reported on the deportation under the heading "The broken promise", by the journalists, Sven Bergman, Fredrik Laurin, and Joachim Dyfvermark.

After the publication, the Swedish government was dismissive in its responses to inquiries from members of the Swedish parliament. Criminal investigations was undertaken twice, but no crime was found. The Parliamentary Ombudsman examined the handling of the case after the decision had been made, and criticised harshly various aspects of the degrading treatment of the subjects at the airport. However, these investigations failed to question the decision itself, nor was the haste of its execution and the failure to inform the lawyers or allow time to have the decisions examined by international human rights bodies questioned.

The Committee against Torture under the United Nations' Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights found on May 24, 2004, that the Government of Sweden had violated its obligations under the Convention against Torture in the forced repatriation of Mr. Agiza.

The United Nations' Human Rights Committee found on November 10, 2006, that Sweden had violated the International Covenant on Civil an Political Rights on most accounts when repatriating Mr. Alzeri. Alzeri's lawyer had announced that the decision, if negative, would be appealed to competent international human rights courts. The covenant obliges its signatories to delay execution of extraditions in cases of alleged danger of torture, until such courts had reviewed the decision. However, the Committee still found it was satisfied that Sweden had "at least plausible grounds for considering, at the time, the case in question to present national security concerns." In consequence, the Committee did not find "a violation of article 13 of the Covenant for the failure to be allowed to submit reasons against his deportation and have the case reviewed by a competent authority". No attempt was made to explain how Mr. Alzery could plausibly constitute such a formidable security threat that he could not be held imprisoned during such a review, but had to be sent out of the territory the very same night. After all, what is known about the allegations that shall have been the basis for the decision to extradite him, alleged leadership and responsibility for acts of terrorism, are punishable with years of prison even in Sweden. However, the lack of such a review was held to be a breach of article 7 of the Covenant.