The ECHR judgment of 30 May 2017 in the case "N.A. (N.A.) v. Switzerland" (application No. 50364/14) and the ECtHR judgment of 30 May 2017 "A.I. (A.I.) v. Switzerland" (application No. 23378/15).
In 2014 and 2015, the applicants were assisted in the preparation of applications. Subsequently, applications were communicated to Switzerland.
In the case, the complaints about the alleged expulsion of the citizenship of the applicants who conduct political opposition activities in exile were successfully considered. No violation of the requirements of Articles 2, 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the event of the expulsion of the applicant-1 will be allowed in the case. There will be violations of the requirements of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the event of the expulsion of the applicant-2.
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
Both applicants are active members of the Movement for Justice and Equality (hereinafter referred to as JEM), which is one of the largest rebel groups that provides armed resistance to the Sudanese regime. A.I. is also a member of the organization advocating peace and development in Darfur (hereinafter referred to as DFEZ). The applicants applied for asylum in Switzerland, but the Federal Migration Body (now the State Secretariat for Migration Affairs - SEM) decided that they did not have refugee status, and rejected their asylum applications, ordered to be expelled from Switzerland.
ISSUES OF LAW
Concerning compliance with articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. After the judgment in the case AA v. Switzerland, it can not be asserted that the secret services of the Sudan conduct systematic monitoring of the activities of political opponents abroad and to assess whether persons suspected of supporting organizations opposing the Sudanese regime, and thus risk being exposed to threats of ill-treatment and torture in the event of expulsion to the Sudan because of their political activities in exile. A number of factors must be taken into account.
Given the reasons for the applicants' escape, the Court did not establish any facts that could justify the doubt in the SEM assessment, which concluded that their allegations were not reliable. There was also no evidence that the Sudanese authorities showed interest in the applicants when they were still living in Sudan or abroad before arriving in Switzerland.
However, the applicants' membership in JEM, and A.I. in DFEZ was a factor that generates a threat of persecution. JEM was one of the main rebel movements in the Sudan, and the danger it poses to the Sudanese authorities has increased in connection with the legitimacy it acquired in connection with the conflict in Darfur.
(a) Case N.A. Political activity N.A. in Switzerland did not really increase for more than three years, and he could not be considered an active political opponent of the Sudanese regime. Accordingly, his political activities in Switzerland were limited to mere participation in the work of opposition organizations in exile and should not have attracted the attention of the intelligence services of the Sudan. He could not claim to have had personal or family ties with well-known members of the opposition in exile who could pose a threat to him. In view of the foregoing, political activities in exile, which were limited to mere participation in the work of opposition organizations in exile, should not have attracted the attention of the intelligence services of the Sudan. Accordingly, he would not be at risk of ill-treatment and torture in connection with his exile in the event of his expulsion to the Sudan.
Finally, the Court did not find that there was a threat of persecution of the applicant because of his ethnic origin, since he did not claim to belong to a non-Arab ethnic group in Darfur.
In the case of the requirements of articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the event of the expulsion of N.A. the Sudan will not be violated (unanimously).
(b) Case A.I. The AI applicant, who was already engaged in political activities in a degree that is not insignificant, eventually became even more carried away by it, as can be seen from his participation in international conferences on the human rights situation in the Sudan, his publication of articles critical of the Sudanese regime and his appointment to the the post of media director of JEM. Despite the fact that A.I. could not be considered to have a very significant political influence, especially since he had never spoken on behalf of an opposition organization at these conferences, the specific situation in the Sudan should be taken into account.
As a result of participation in JEMA activities, the applicant A.I. regularly and often visited the leaders of the Swiss branch of this movement, but he did not claim to have personal or family ties with well-known members of the opposition in exile who could pose a threat to him. However, as an individual and because of his political activities in exile, he drew the attention of the intelligence services of the Sudan. He could be suspected of membership in an organization opposing the Sudanese regime. Accordingly, there were reasonable grounds to believe that A.I. will face the threat of being detained, questioned and tortured upon arrival at the airport in Sudan and that he will not be able to live normally in the country.
There will be a violation of the requirements of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention in the case of the expulsion of A.I. in Sudan (unanimously adopted).
In the application of Article 41 of the Convention. There were no demands for payment of any compensation.