issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 252 (2013)
05.09.2013
Somali man would not be at risk due to current security situation
in Mogadishu if deported from Sweden
final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, by five votes to two, that there would be:
no violation of Article 2 (right to life) or Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)
of the European Convention on Human Rights if the applicant were returned to Somalia.
The case addresses the prevailing security situation in Mogadishu (Somalia). It concerned a Somali
national, originally from Mogadishu, who alleged that his deportation from Sweden to Somalia
would put him at real risk of being killed or subjected to ill-treatment.
The Court found that the applicant would not be at risk as a result of the current security situation in
Mogadishu, the general level of violence in the city having decreased since 2011 or beginning of
2012. Also assessing the applicant’s personal situation, the Court concluded that he had failed to
make out a plausible case that he would face a real risk of being killed or subjected to ill-treatment
on return. Notably, he does not belong to any group that is at risk of being targeted by an Islamist
group (al-Shabaab) and he allegedly has a home in Mogadishu, where his wife lives.
Continuation of interim measures
The Court also decided to continue its indication to the Swedish Government, made under Rule 39 of
the Rules of Court, that the applicant should not be removed until the judgment became final or
until further decision.
Principal facts
The applicant is a Somali national who was born in 1960 and originates from Mogadishu.
He entered Sweden and requested asylum in April 2009, claiming that he had fled Somalia due to
persecution by the Islamic courts and al-Shabaab, an Islamist group, as he had worked from 1992 to
2005 for the American Friends Service Community. He had notably received threatening telephone
calls telling him to stop spreading Christianity.
He was heard by both the Swedish Migration Board, which interviewed him on five occasions, and
the Swedish Migration Court, which held an oral hearing on his case. He was assisted by legal
counsel and given the opportunity to submit written observations.
Both these authorities rejected his asylum request, concluding that he had failed to substantiate a
well-founded fear of persecution. They notably found that his submissions concerning his work for
the American Friends Service Community as well as the alleged threats from the Islamic courts and
al-Shabaab were too vague. They also considered that there were a number of credibility issues with
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
