issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 210 (2012)  
15.05.2012  
A dissident Iranian family should not be deported to Iran where  
they risk ill-treatment  
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case S.F. and Others v. Sweden (application  
no. 52077/10), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,  
unanimously, that there would be:  
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the  
European Convention on Human Rights if the applicants were expelled from Sweden.  
The case concerned a complaint by an Iranian family - who fled Iran in fear of  
persecution because of their involvement with a Kurdish-rights political party - that they  
would be tortured or otherwise ill-treated if deported to Iran.  
The Court found that the applicants were justified in fearing that they might be  
subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if deported to Iran, in particular  
given their political activities in Sweden, which included the reporting of human rights  
violations in their country of origin; deporting them, therefore, would breach their  
human rights.  
Principal facts  
The applicants, S.F., N.S. and A.F., are Iranian nationals who were born respectively in  
1977, 1979 and 2009 and currently live in Sweden. The first two applicants are married  
and are the parents of the third applicant, who was born in Sweden.  
S.F. and N.S. arrived in Sweden in September 2007 having left Iran, according to them,  
out of fear for their life and safety. They claimed that S.F. had been politically active in  
Iran in favour of the Kurdish cause, and had spent a month in prison because of his  
activities. After he witnessed the arrest of a colleague outside their workplace, both he  
and his wife fled Iran, crossing the border into Turkey and then continuing through  
Europe by truck.  
Upon arrival in Sweden, they applied for asylum claiming that, because of their activities  
in Iran and subsequently in Sweden, their lives would be in danger if they were returned  
to Iran. In particular, they submitted that following their arrival in Sweden both of them  
had been politically active, attending meetings of the Democratic Party of Iranian  
Kurdistan, for example, and featuring in news programmes broadcast on satellite  
channels banned in Iran. Also, N.S. had started working regularly for a Kurdish TV  
channel known to be critical of the Iranian regime.  
Their asylum requests were rejected by the migration board and courts alike, which  
found that while their story sounded credible, it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities  
would persecute them, given their low ranking as Kurdish-rights activists. The applicants  
1
1 Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month  
period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the  
Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further  
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral  
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for  
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:  
www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution  
argued that their political activity in Sweden had been substantial and the Iranian  
authorities knew about it. Despite their submissions, the migration court of appeal  
refused to examine their request.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 3, the applicants complained that they would run a real risk of being  
ill-treated if returned to Iran, in view of the general situation there and their particular  
circumstances, namely their high profile as dissidents who had left the country illegally.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 September  
2010.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,  
Elisabet Fura (Sweden),  
Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),  
Ann Power-Forde (Ireland),  
Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),  
Angelika Nußberger (Germany) and  
André Potocki (France),  
and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
Risk of Ill-treatment (Article 3)  
The Court recalled that States party to the Convention had the right to control the entry,  
residence and expulsion of aliens, unless people were exposed to a real and serious risk  
of being tortured or otherwise ill-treated in the receiving country if expelled.  
With regard to the human rights situation in Iran, the Court observed that it gave rise to  
grave concern as it appeared to have been deteriorating since the Swedish authorities  
determined the case. Information available on Iran from a number of international  
sources showed that the Iranian authorities frequently detained and ill-treated people  
who peacefully participated in opposition or human rights activities. Those people  
included not only leaders of political organisations or other high-profile individuals who  
were detained, but anyone who opposed the current regime. However, taken on its own,  
the situation in Iran could not justify the finding by the Court of a violation if the  
applicants were expelled to Iran.  
Notwithstanding the above, the Court examined the applicants’ personal situation and  
noted that their story was credible overall. It found that the applicants’ activities in Iran  
were not, on their own, sufficient to conclude that a real and immediate risk existed of  
them being ill-treated if returned to Iran. On the other hand, the Court found that their  
activities in Sweden had intensified and grown in importance since 2008. Furthermore,  
the information available on Iran showed that the Iranian authorities effectively  
monitored internet communications as well as those critical of the regime, even outside  
Iran. In addition, given the applicants’ activities and incidents in Iran before moving to  
Sweden, the Court concluded that the Iranian authorities would easily identify them.  
That conclusion was also supported by the fact that the applicants did not have valid  
identity documents and had allegedly left Iran illegally.  
2
With regard to all the above, the Court held that a real risk existed of the applicants  
being ill-treated if returned to Iran. There would, therefore, be a violation of Article 3 if  
Sweden deported them to Iran.  
Interim measure (Rule 39 of the Rules of Court)  
The Court held that the applicants were not to be deported until this judgment became  
final or until the Court took a further decision on the question.  
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Sweden was to pay the applicants 1,240 euros (EUR) in respect of  
costs and expenses.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.  
Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on  
www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s  
RSS feeds.  
Press contacts  
[email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77)  
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)  
Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of  
Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European  
Convention on Human Rights.  
3