What sort of dangers would a Muslim face if he converted to Christianity and then was deported to Iran, a nation governed by strict Islamic law?
The European Court of Human Rights has ordered Sweden to consider that very question.
Sweden denied asylum to the former Muslim, identified only by the initials F.G.
The Swedish Migration Agency rejected his application, explaining the conversion and baptism “had not taken place in the church of Sweden.”
The agency ultimately concluded F.G.’s conversion to Christianity did not warrant that he be protected, and his appeals were rejected.
But the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, argued an “alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
“In addition, an alien must not, in principle, be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution.”
Paul Coleman, deputy director of ADF International, which advocated for F.G., noted the court took ADF International’s arguments into account “and found a breach of the applicant’s right to life and right of protection against torture if the applicant were to be returned to Iran without an appropriate assessment of the risk and consequences he would be facing as a Christian.”
“Sadly, the anti-conversion laws in Iran pose a direct threat to those who have converted to Christianity, and we must ensure that a convert’s right to life is being upheld by all means,” Coleman said.
The case now goes back to authorities in Sweden, where the ECHR’s decision is to be implemented.
The 70-page decision from the court’s Grand Chamber concluded that “the applicant has sufficiently shown that his claim for asylum on the basis of his conversion merits an assessment by the national authorities.”
“It is for the domestic authorities to take this material into account, as well as any further development regarding the general situation in Iran and the particular circumstances of the applicant’s situation. It follows that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the convention if the applicant were to be returned to Iran without an ex nunc [forward-going] assessment by the Swedish authorities of the consequences of his conversion.”
The ruling noted the applicant was born in 1962, moved to Sweden in 2009 and lives there now.
In his application, he explained he does not consider Christianity a religion like Islam.
“Christianity is about a kind of love you have for God,” he said.
He said he was arrested several times for working on website projects in Iran that oppose the mullah-led regime. He decided to flee after finding his business property had been searched and his passport and other documents were gone.
“Subsequently, the applicant was summoned to appear on 2 November 2009 before the Revolutionary Court. He had contacted a friend who, in turn, had obtained the help of a smuggler to enable him to leave the country,” the court said.
The ECHR decision noted that, over the course of the case, the deportation order for F.G. had expired. He now is an applicant “in limbo.”
“He has not been granted asylum or a residence permit in Sweden and during any new asylum proceedings, he will unavoidably remain in an uncertain situation as regards the matters relied on,” the court said.
“This being so,” the ruling said, “the court is not satisfied that the applicant has completely lost his victim status.”
ADF International said the court originally declared in January 2014 the applicant’s rights were not violated “because a risk did not yet exist that Iranian authorities knew of his conversion.”
But on appeal, ADF International provided legal analysis and background details on the plight of Christians in Iran.
“The first ruling of the court ignored the fatal consequences a conversion to Christianity in Iran might have,” explained Robert Clarke, director of European advocacy for ADF International. “It also disregarded former decisions of the court concerning Iranian converts, where judgments were issued in favor of the converts.”
The new court decision said the Islamic regime “had systematic mechanisms in place in an attempt to identify all members in their society who had converted from Islam to Christianity.”
“These mechanisms had made it increasingly likely for the government to identify a Christian convert in Iran, even if practicing in secret,” the court said.
“If identified by the Iranian government, Christian converts would often, at least, suffer substantial harm or interference with their lives by way of deprivation of liberty, assaults and continual harassment, and in the worst case scenario the individual could face severe ill-treatment and death.”
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/court-muslim-convert-to-christianity-does-have-human-rights/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/03/24/court-muslim-convert-to-christianity-does-have-human-rights/
No comments:
Post a Comment