Mr. Chairman,Distinguished Members of the CommitteeLadies and Gentlemen
It is an honour for me to introduce the sixth periodic report of the Government of Sweden, submitted to the Committee on 20 July 2007 under the Convention on Civil and Political Rights. I ask for your indulgence if I exceed the time limit, but I think that what I am going to say to some extent might anticipate answers to some of the questions that members of the Committee might wish to ask later.
First, let me introduce my colleagues
Ms Maria Kelt, Director, Ministry of JusticeMs Carin Bratt, Director and Deputy Head of the Division for Migration and Asylum Policy, Ministry of JusticeMs Camilla Goldbeck-Löwe, Deputy Director, Division for Discrimination Issues, Ministry of Integration and Gender EqualityMr Göran Ternbo, Deputy Director, Game Management, Fisheries and Sami Affairs, Ministry of AgricultureMs Bilge Tekin Befrits, Desk Officer, Division for Discrimination Issues, Ministry of Integration and Gender EqualityMs Gunilla Isaksson, Special Adviser, Department for International Law, Human Rights and Treaty Law, Ministry for Foreign AffairsMs Malin Ekman Alden, Desk Officer, Division for Social Services, Ministry of Health and Social Affairs
Let me begin by re-affirming the commitment of the Government of Sweden to respect and fulfil its international human rights obligations. To promote and protect human rights is one of the Government’s most important tasks and also constitutes a cornerstone in Swedish foreign policy. Last year, the Government submitted a written Communication to Parliament on human rights in Sweden’s foreign policy, in which it declares that it raises its ambitions to promote and protect human rights internationally, in collaboration with our EU partner countries as well as independently.
In the Communication, freedom of expression is identified as an area of priority. Freedom of expression is a necessary precondition for people’s participation in public and political life and thereby the ability to fight oppression. It is a sine qua non human rights violations in general and abuse of public power will not be noted and possible to address. In this respect, free and independent media is of great importance. In particular, the accessibility to the Internet provides unparalleled opportunities to receive and share information. Therefore, the Government is strengthening its work to combat censorship and unlawful limitations of the freedom of expression, inter alia, on the Internet.
Mr Chairman,
The fight against terrorism constitutes a challenge that affects us all. It calls for increased efforts to protect human rights standards, in particular those aiming at protecting the integrity of individuals for example, conditions for detention and the prohibition against torture, which is another area of priority. Sweden remains committed to speak up against all forms of torture, wherever it occurs and for whatever reasons.
Another prioritized area identified in the Communication is the prevention of all forms of discrimination, in particular racism and xenophobia, including islamophobia. Preventing and effectively combating all forms of discrimination also constitutes a main object of Sweden’s national action plan for human rights for the years 2006–2009. The national action plan includes a long list of concrete actions that the Government will undertake in order to tackle discrimination and other human rights problems more effectively.
Finally I wish to underline the Government’s commitment to the Rule of Law and to its promotion within the EU, the UN and other fora. The protection of civil and political rights constitutes a fundamental task for a state that adheres to the principle of Rule of Law.
I first would like to say a few words about the General Comment number 33 of this Committee, which I understand now have been a The Government has already commented upon it in a rather critical way in writing but I think it is important to mention it here today. Over the years, the Human Rights Committee has provided valuable interpretations of the material content of the various rights set forth in the Covenant and has contributed to developing a body of jurisprudence which assists State parties in implementing their treaty obligations. As a State party to the Optional Protocol, Sweden has always regarded the Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee – as well as by the other UN treaty bodies endowed with competence to adopt views on individual complaints such as the Committee against Torture – as authoritative. And there has always been a strong political interest in Sweden, to the largest possible extent, respect such Views from the treaty bodies. This commitment includes Views on interim measures, pending the consideration of the communication, as well as Views upon conclusion of the communication.
When the Swedish Government took its decision to ratify the Optional Protocol in 1971, it was of the explicit opinion that the Human Rights Committee was not equivalent to a court and that its Views were therefore not binding upon Sweden under international law. Sweden’s position with regard hereto has not changed since the ratification. Although the Draft General Comment no 33 stopped short from referring to the Human Rights Committee’s Views as directly legally binding on State parties, it clearly signalled that the Committee regarded its Views as though they were decisions from a judicial body. Sweden is hence concerned that the Draft General Comment attempted to extend the Human Rights Committee’s competence beyond what is actually feasible in international law and goes beyond what the states intended when this body was created. Such an approach might even necessitate a new Swedish ratification. However, the Government will be happy to offer its views and assist the Human Rights Committee in any way appropriate in its continuous work.
On 18 June 2008 the Swedish Parliament adopted a new Law on Signals Intelligence in Defence Operations. Since this new Act has caused considerable debate in Sweden and in some neighbouring countries I would like to make a few comments on this legislation already at this stage.
Signals intelligence may be collected as part of defence intelligence operations under the Defence Intelligence Act, that is to say, in support of Swedish foreign, security and defence policy and otherwise so as to chart external threats to the country. Due to technological developments, the Government proposed legislation that allows the collection of communications transmitted via cable. On 18 June 2008, the Parliament approved the Government’s proposal for a new Signals Intelligence Act. But it also stated that the Government was expected to return to the Parliament as soon as possible with certain additions concerning issues such as the forms for issuing permits and certain enhanced control mechanisms aiming at ensuring the integrity and privacy of individuals.
The Government plans to submit proposals to this effect and in the Report of the Ministry of Defence (Ds 2009:1), which was presented on 10 February 2009, proposals for changes in the law on Signals Intelligence in Defence Operations, a new law on a Defence Intelligence Court and changes in the Secrecy Act (1980:100) are introduced. The proposals aim at increasing the safeguard for protection of privacy in signals intelligence collection. The Report is currently being circulated for comments and it is therefore difficult to answer questions regarding the final result. Preparations for a new law will continue within the Government Offices. The most important proposals in the new Report are:
- The law will be more detailed in stating the purposes for which signals intelligence may be used.- Only the Government, the Government Offices and the Swedish Armed Forces will have the right to direct the signals intelligence.- In order to strengthen the control system the National Defence Radio Establishment will have to seek permission for its signals intelligence activities from a new special court, the Defence Intelligence Court.
Mr. Chairman,
Allow me to address another controversial issue, the well-known cases of the two Egyptian citizens Mohammed Alzery and Ahmed Agiza who were expelled from Sweden to Egypt in December 2001.
As mentioned in the Government’s written reply of 19 January to the list issues presented by the Committee before today’s hearing, the Swedish Government on 1 March 2007 decided to repeal the decision of the former Government of 2001. The Government referred Mr Alzery’s request for a residence permit to the Migration Board, which on 10 May 2007 rejected the application. Mr Alzery currently has an appeal pending against the Migration Board’s decision. The Government will decide in the matter as a last instance, since the case still is regarded as a security case under the Aliens Act. There are still some questions to be addressed before the Government can make a decision.
In the Government’s decision of 1 March 2007, Mr Alzery’s claim for compensation was referred to the Chancellor of Justice. In a settlement reached on 2 July 2008 between him and the Chancellor of Justice on behalf of the Swedish Government Mr Alzery received 3 160 000 kronor (about 390 000 US dollars).
As indicated in the Government’s latest communication to the Committee in this case, the Committee will be provided with more detailed information about the follow up of the Committee’s views, adopted on 25 October 2006, as soon as the Government has made its decision on the appeal lodged by Mr Alzery regarding the residence permit issue.
Under the Swedish Constitution, the public prosecutors are, like the courts and the administrative authorities, independent in relation to the Government when dealing with individual cases. The Government is not allowed to instruct these authorities in their assessment of an individual case and a prosecutor cannot be given instructions to prosecute. The Government is therefore not in a position to request that the “prosecuting authorities” institute criminal investigations in the cases of Mohammed Alzery and Ahmed Agiza. Swedish prosecutors are under an absolute obligation to prosecute. This means that a prosecutor, unless it is otherwise provided for in law, must institute court proceedings in respect of all offences that fall under public prosecution and where the prosecutor on objective grounds is able to foresee that sentence by a general court will be passed.
This obligation is coupled with a corresponding duty – likewise absolute – to start a preliminary investigation. This, in turn, means that in principle there is an obligation to initiate a preliminary investigation as soon as there is reason to believe that an offence under public prosecution has been committed.
Public prosecutors on different levels have looked at the question whether a criminal investigation should be initiated in the cases of Mohammed Alzery and Ahmed Agiza. Both a district prosecutor and a superior prosecutor have decided not to initiate a preliminary investigation. Even the Parliamentary Ombudsman has decided not to institute a criminal investigation in these cases. The Prosecutor-General has decided not to resume the preliminary investigation.
I would like to stress that Sweden has not participated in any form of what is referred to as extraordinary renditions. The expulsion order was made in accordance with the Aliens Act in force at the time.
The expulsions of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Alzery in 2001 have been heavily criticized not only by the UN treaty bodies but also by Swedish national institutions. The Standing Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Affairs has criticized the Swedish Government for the decisions to expel the two men, accepting the diplomatic assurances from Egyptian authorities. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has scrutinized the expulsions and has expressed very serious criticism regarding how the officials from the Swedish Security Police acted when the two men were expelled from Sweden.
Regarding the issue of preventing similar violations in the future, I would like to refer to our sixth periodic report to the Committee and the new procedure for security cases according to the Aliens Act and the Act concerning special control in respect of aliens. After the expulsions of Mr Agiza and Mr Alzery, the National Swedish Police Board has issued guidelines regarding the effectuation of expulsion orders. The guidelines stipulate the alien’s right to receive a humane and dignified treatment during the enforcement of an expulsion order.
The process should be carried out with full respect for the alien’s human rights. The enforcement of an expulsion decision/order may be carried out in cooperation with foreign authorities. However, on Swedish territory, Swedish authorities maintain superior command at all times during such cooperation.
In case of mistreatment of the alien, for example by representatives of a foreign authority, Swedish police shall abort the enforcement. The expulsion process is completed when the alien has been submitted to representatives of the receiving country.
Mr Chairman
I would now like to add a few words on Expulsion and Deportation of Aliens in general.
A decision to detain an alien according to the Swedish Aliens Act is based on an individual assessment of the merits of each case. As accounted for in the sixth report to the Committee, there is currently no maximum limit of time regarding detention of adults in the Aliens Act. A child may not according to the Aliens Act be detained for more than 72 hours or, if there are exceptional grounds, for a further 72 hours. The Government has appointed a Special Investigator to examine the EC Directive of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. The Special Investigator will look into inter alia the maximum limit of detention of 18 months as laid down in Article 15 of the directive. A first report will be presented by the investigator on 15 June 2009.
Regarding the question of procedures and sanctions against public institutions and officials who do not follow the procedure prescribed by law, I would like to refer to what was said in the sixth periodic report to the Committee paragraph 28. The Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice are authorised, alongside the police and public prosecutor, to bring charges against a civil servant for breach of official duty. They can also report misdemeanours to a competent disciplinary committee, which can in turn decide on a disciplinary measure, such as a warning or salary deduction, in accordance with Swedish labour legislation.
Mr Chairman, The absolute prohibition against torture is reflected in several provisions of the Aliens Act. For example Chapter 12 Section 1 of the Act stipulates that a refusal of entry and expulsion of an alien may never be enforced to a country where there are reasonable grounds for assuming that the alien would be in danger of suffering the death penalty or being subjected to corporal punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or that the alien is not protected in the receiving country from being sent on to a country in which the alien would be in such danger. This provision has been worded in order to correspond to the Swedish commitments according to international standards, notably Article 3 the UN Convention against Torture and Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court.
Chapter 5 Section 4 of the 2005 Aliens Act stipulates that if an international body that is competent to examine complaints from individuals has found that a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order in a particular case is contrary to a Swedish commitment under an international human rights convention, a residence permit shall be granted to the person covered by the order, unless there are exceptional grounds against granting a residence permit. Accordingly, as a rule, residence permits are granted by the Migration Board, or, in some cases, by the Government, if such an international body has established that the enforcement of an expulsion order would be in breach of Sweden’s international commitments.
In the preparatory works to this provision persons who are excluded from international protection according to the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees and very gross criminals are exemplified as persons for whom there would be exceptional grounds against granting a residence permit. Instead if there are such exceptional grounds, the expulsion may not be enforced. If an international body that is competent to examine complaints from individuals makes a request to Sweden for suspension of the enforcement of a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order, a stay of enforcement shall be ordered unless there are exceptional grounds for not doing so. This follows from Chapter 12 Section 12 of the Aliens Act. The wording of this provision in the act is according to the preparatory works a guarantee that the enforcement is stayed in practically all cases.
The Government has appointed a commission to evaluate the new Aliens Act that entered into force in March 2006, and inter alia look into the development of case law under the Act. The commission will deliver its final report on 30 June 2009.
Now, turning to a totally different area, the Sami, I wish to inform the Committee that the, sometimes very criticized, agreement between Norway and Sweden from 1971 on the concession pastures for reindeer grazing has been reviewed and proposals for amendments have recently resulted in a new agreement. It will be signed by the parties shortly. It is expected to have impact on the management systems for reindeer grazing in both Sweden and Norway. One innovation in relation to the former agreement is that a Sami village now has a right to come to an agreement on deviations related to a special protocol on concession pastures for reindeer grazing. There is also a provision that underlines that the agreement does not affect the prescription from time immemorial that Swedish reindeer herders have in Norway and vice versa.
As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the fight against all forms of discrimination, including multiple discrimination, remain one of the key human rights objectives of my Government. In Sweden, as in many other countries, discrimination remains an area of concern, despite attempts to counter it. The Government’s most extensive initiative is the new Discrimination Act, which was submitted by the Government to the Parliament in March 2008 and adopted by the Parliament in June 2008. The Act entered into force on 1 January 2009 and will further improve the work against discrimination in Sweden.
The new Act has merged the current seven civil law acts against discrimination regarding different areas of society and different grounds of discri¬mination in a single piece of legislation. The current four Ombudsmen against discrimination on different grounds, including the Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination, has merged into one single national authority, called the Ombudsman against Discrimination (the DO). This will ensure more effective and powerful monitoring of compliance with the Act. Over and above the structural benefits, the merger is expected to improve the conditions for dealing with cases of multiple discrimination.
The Act includes protection for the five previously protected grounds of discrimination; ethnic affiliation (which includes racial discrimination), sex, sexual orientation, religion or belief and disability. It also adds two new grounds; age and gender identity.
The Act also introduces protection in areas of society not previously covered by the legislation. The most important example is the general prohibition against discrimination for employees in the public sector.
The objective of the Swedish disability policy is to achieve a society based on diversity, a society designed to allow people with disability of all ages full participation in the every day life of the community, and equal opportunities in life for people with disabilities – girls and boys, women and men.
It is no secret that Sweden, like many other countries today is facing several challenges in welfare provision. Improvement in welfare requires fresh thinking to improve quality, a diversity of actors and great choice for the individual.
On 30 March 2007 Sweden signed the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and the Optional Protocol and on 15 December the Convention was ratified. The same day Sweden acceded to the Optional Protocol.
The convention on the rights of persons with disabilities is one of the key human rights instruments but does not in itself, create any new rights. Instead it aims to eliminate obstacles that prevent people with disabilities from enjoying their human rights. Accession to the convention and the Optional protocol does not require any changes of or any amendment to the existing legislation. However it will be an important tool in the future planning and monitoring of the Swedish disability policy.
In March 2006 the Government took a decision concerning “A National Action Plan for Human rights 2006-2009” (Government Communication 2005/06:95). It was presented to the Parliament in May 2006, and it is the Government’s second national action plan for human rights. The new Government Communication contains an action plan for human rights for the period of 2006-2009 (Part I) and a survey of human rights in Sweden in 2005 (Part II). The action plan details measures based on the survey aimed at strengthening a number of rights. It focuses on protection against discrimination and specifies several measures aimed at combating discrimination on grounds of sex, ethnicity, religion or other belief, disability, sexual orientation and, to a certain extent, age. Other issues addressed include the rights of people with disabilities, children’s rights, men’s violence against women, including violence in the name of honour, and human trafficking, rule of law issues and asylum and migration. Other measures are announced which are aimed at increasing knowledge and information about human rights within the education system and the public sector as well as among the general public.
In conjunction with the presentation of the action plan, the Government established a Delegation on Human Rights in Sweden to support the long-term task of securing full respect for human rights in Sweden based on the action plan. The Delegation shall deliver its final report to the Government by 31 March 2010.
The work on the Government’s long-term goal, achieving full respect for human rights, must be a continuous process. The Government’s assessment is that national action plans for human rights are an appropriate method to work with and has recently decided that the second action plan will be evaluated. This evaluation will be an important input for the continued work with human rights issues in Sweden and the Swedish Government intends to maintain a high level of ambition regarding the systematic work with human rights on national level. The work on every action plan is a process of consultation with broad sectors of the community, which contributes to increased awareness, knowledge, openness and discussion about human rights issues.
From previous examinations of Sweden, it appears that Sweden’s general human rights record meets with high demands. This should not be held against Sweden in order to put higher demands. My Government expects to be measured according to the same standards as other Convention states, and nothing else.
Before I conclude, I would like to express my Government’s appreciation of the work carried out by the different human rights organisations with a view to provide the Committee with relevant information for the Committee to be able to perform its examination task in the best way.
On that note, I myself and my delegation are prepared to answer any questions the members of the Committee may wish to ask.
Thank you Mr Chairman