CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 mars 1994

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          Application No. 21406/93                       by Z., S. and H.                       against Sweden         The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 10 March 1994, the following members being present:         MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President            S. TRECHSEL            A. WEITZEL            F. ERMACORA            E. BUSUTTIL            G. JÖRUNDSSON            A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK            J.-C. SOYER            H.G. SCHERMERS            H. DANELIUS       Mrs. G.H. THUNE       MM.   F. MARTINEZ            C.L. ROZAKIS       Mrs. J. LIDDY       MM.   L. LOUCAIDES            J.-C. GEUS            M.P. PELLONPÄÄ            B. MARXER            G.B. REFFI            M.A. NOWICKI            I. CABRAL BARRETO            B. CONFORTI            N. BRATZA            I. BÉKÉS            J. MUCHA            E. KONSTANTINOV            D. SVÁBY         Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 21 February 1993 by Z., S. and H. against Sweden and registered on 22 February 1993 under file No. 21406/93;         Having regard to :         -     reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure    of       the Commission;         -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       28 April 1993 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicants on 18 June 1993;           -     the parties' oral submissions at the hearing on 18 October       1993;         -     the observations submitted by the Government on 10 February       1994 and by the applicants on 16 February 1994;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The first applicant is an Iranian citizen, born in 1957. She is the mother of the two other applicants, Iranian citizens born in 1980 and 1982 respectively. Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Ms. Lena Isaksson, a lawyer practising at Umeå.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.         According to the applicants, the first applicant in 1977 joined a dissident movement in Iran which later became part of a political party. Subsequently she became the President of the women's branch of the party in Teheran, her tasks including educating women about their rights. In 1981 the activities of the party were banned by the Iranian Government.         The first applicant's late husband worked for the same party. In 1982 he was imprisoned essentially on account of anti-Islamic activities. In 1985 he was executed, having refused to apologise publicly for his activities. The execution has been confirmed by Amnesty International.         In 1984 the first applicant was convicted of various anti-Islamic and related activities and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and a suspended sentence of a further five years. In prison she was flogged.         In the beginning of 1985 the first applicant was released, her father having pledged certain real property as a "security". As her suspended sentence was not revoked, she was to report to the authorities once a month and was prohibited from leaving Iran. Following her release she pursued her dissident activities underground.         In 1989 the first applicant was again imprisoned and flogged, following which she was briefly hospitalised. Later in 1989 she was again released from prison, again after her father had pledged certain real property as a "security".         Fearing further persecution, the applicants left Iran in June 1991 and arrived in Sweden on 14 July 1991, where they immediately lodged requests for asylum.         On 13 December 1991 the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) rejected the asylum requests, ordered the applicants to be expelled (avvisas) and issued a prohibition on return valid until 1 January 1994.         On 14 December 1992 the Aliens Appeals Board (utlänningsnämnden) upheld the National Immigration Board's decision, considering, inter alia:         (translation from Swedish)         "[The first applicant] has thrown away her passport and travel       documents. The reason for this must be assumed to be an attempt not       to disclose certain circumstances of relevance to the assessment of       her and her children's right to asylum. She claims to have been       unable to work politically as from 1981. Following her release [from       prison] ... in 1984 she was not subjected to any measure by the       authorities until ... 1989. She was then arrested for having aided       and abetted another person released from prison ... and for having       known that her [late] husband had been hiding weapons. She was       acquitted due to lack of evidence. Thus, it has not been       substantiated that she has been politically active from 1981       onwards, nor that she is wanted due to such activity.         Having regard to the above and the time which has elapsed since the       execution of the applicant's husband, the Aliens Board agrees with       the assessment made by the National Immigration Board. [The       applicants] shall not be considered ... refugees ... "         In a forensic report of 26 January 1993 Dr. K.S. states the following about the first applicant's state of health:         (translation from Swedish)         "...[The first applicant] has scars on her face and on the lower       part of her legs, ... pigmentations on her chest, her shoulders and       her back ... [T]he scars may have been caused in the manner       described by [her] ... [T]he reason behind the changes in her       pigmentation cannot be stated with certainty, but it cannot be       excluded that they may have been violently caused in the manner       described by [her] ..."         In a statement of 27 January 1993 the Swedish branch of Amnesty International supported the applicants' assertion that the first applicant would risk imprisonment and torture, if the applicants were returned to Iran.         On 7 February 1993 the applicants, invoking new evidence, lodged a further request for residence permits and requested suspension of the enforcement of the expulsion order.         On 9 February 1993 the National Immigration Board rejected the requests, but on 26 February 1993 it stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants originally alleged that, if returned to Iran, the first applicant would clearly risk being subjected to further ill- treatment on account of having left Iran despite her suspended sentence and reporting-duty. The applicants invoked Article 3 of the Convention.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 21 February 1993 and registered on 22 February 1993.         On 22 February 1993 the President of the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to return the applicants to Iran until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the application.         The President further decided, pursuant to Rule 34 para. 3 and Rule 48 para. 2(b), to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.         On 8 April 1993 the Commission prolonged the indication under Rule 36 until 14 May 1993.         Following two extensions of the time-limit the Government's observations were submitted on 28 April 1993. The applicants' observations in reply were submitted on 18 June 1993 following an extension of the time-limit.         On 12 May 1993 the Commission prolonged its indication under Rule 36 until 9 July 1993.         On 14 May 1993 the applicants were granted legal aid.         On 8 July 1993 the Commission decided to hold a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application. It further prolonged its indication under Rule 36 until further notice.         At the hearing, which was held on 18 October 1993, the parties were represented as follows:         The Government         Mr. Carl Henrik EHRENKRONA        Agent, Assistant Under-Secretary                                        for Legal Affairs, Ministry for                                        Foreign Affairs         Mr. Erik LEMPERT                  Adviser, Permanent Under-                                        Secretary, Ministry of Culture         Mrs. Ulrika DACKEBY               Adviser, First Secretary, Ministry                                        of Culture         The applicants         Ms. Lena ISAKSSON                 Counsel         Mr. Bo JOHANSSON                  Assistant counsel         The first applicant was also present.         Following the hearing the Commission decided to adjourn the examination of the application awaiting the outcome of a fresh request for a residence permit which the applicants were to lodge with the Swedish authorities. The Commission also prolonged its indication under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure until further notice.         On 10 February 1994 the Government informed the Commission that on 24 January 1994 the National Immigration Board had granted the applicants a permanent residence permit in Sweden.         On 16 February 1994 the applicants informed the Commission of their wish to withdraw their application.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that the applicants have been granted a permanent residence permit in Sweden and that, accordingly, they wish to withdraw their case before the Commission. Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue their petition.   Furthermore, it finds no special circumstances regarding respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the continuation of the examination of the application.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)