CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 janvier 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 2 January 1999 Ould Babar v. Sweden (dec.) - 42367/98 Decision 19.1.1999 Article 3 Inhuman treatment Deportation to a country where the applicant claims to be a slave: inadmissible   The applicant, a citizen of Mauritania, arrived in Sweden in 1997 and applied for asylum, claiming he had left his country to escape slavery.   In the course of a hearing held by the authorities, he asserted, inter alia , that his father was a slave, but that he had grown up with his mother in the capital where he had later set up a business.   Nonetheless, his father’s master owned him too, which implied that he report to him every year and perform various minor tasks on that occasion.   He had obtained a visa for Sweden through his uncle, who held a high post within the Olympic movement.   He further claimed that if expelled to Mauritania he might be severely punished by his master, to whom he had failed to report;   he could expect no protection from the authorities, which, he said, supported the system of slavery.   His application was rejected and his expulsion ordered.   His appeal was to no avail but the enforcement of the expulsion order was stayed until examination of the case by the Court. Inadmissible under Article 3: Contracting States have the right, as a matter of well-established international law and subject to their treaty obligations, including the Convention, to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens.   However, an expulsion order may give rise to an issue under the present provision and hence engage the responsibility of the State where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which he or she is to be expelled.   A mere possibility of ill-treatment is not sufficient.   Furthermore, the expulsion of a person to a country where there is an officially recognised regime of slavery might, in certain circumstances, raise an issue under this provision.   Although slavery is officially prohibited by law in Mauritania, it has been reported by various international organisations that this practice still exists and that the Government has not taken the necessary steps against it.   In the circumstances of this case, the applicant has apparently lived an independent life in the capital and has not had to perform slave labour;   he has not taken part in political activities or received any threats from the authorities, his clan or his father’s master.   Overall, there are no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faces a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to this provision upon his return to Mauritania:   manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes