Amnesty International Report 2004 - Sweden

Covering events from January - December 2003

International monitoring bodies expressed concern about some aspects of Sweden's human rights record. The Gothenburg Committee published its investigation report into the policing of two events in 2001.

International scrutiny

A delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited Sweden from 27 January to 5 February. It reviewed a significant number of complaints of assault by police in the county of Västra Götaland and found that in a number of well-documented cases the system for investigating suspected police ill-treatment had been ineffective, and that some complaints had not been expeditiously investigated. The CPT delegation also found that its 1998 recommendations to prevent police ill-treatment had not been implemented. In particular, the rights to inform a relative or other third party of one's custody, to have access to a lawyer from the outset of one's custody, and to have access to a doctor were still to be fully guaranteed by national laws; and a form setting out the rights of people in police custody had yet to be produced.

The CPT found that detainees kept in prolonged isolation at Tidaholm prison suffered from "deleterious mental health consequences" and were offered an extremely poor regime; and that all remand detainees at the Västberga section of Kronoberg remand prison and remand prisoners subjected to restrictions at Umeå and Gothenburg remand prisons were locked in their cells for 23 hours per day, in some cases for weeks. The CPT reiterated its concerns regarding the legal procedures to impose and maintain restrictions on remand prisoners, which do not allow for an effective review by the courts of the grounds on which the prosecutor's request is based, and about the type of restrictions requested.

In April the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) published its second report on Sweden. It welcomed recent legislative and policy measures to combat racism and discrimination, but noted an increase in racial violence and harassment, including against immigrants, Jews, Roma, and – since the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001 – in the number of Islamophobic incidents. ECRI noted a significant incidence of discrimination in employment, housing, education and access to public places, coupled with a scarce use of anti-discrimination legislation; and a risk of segregation of society along ethnic lines, affecting in particular women and children of immigrant and Roma origin. ECRI recommended that steps should be taken to ensure that non-citizen women wishing to leave abusive relationships are not prevented from doing so for fear of losing permission to reside in the country.

Policing of 2001 protests in Gothenburg and Malmö

In January the Gothenburg Committee investigating police activities at demonstrations during the meeting of the European Union (EU) Council for Economic and Financial Affairs (Ecofin) in Malmö in April 2001 and at the EU summit in Gothenburg in June 2001 published its findings. In relation to the Malmö meeting, the Committee found that police actions had severely restricted the freedom to demonstrate of some 300 people, and that some officers had used excessive force against demonstrators taken into custody, and abusive language, in particular directed at young women. With respect to the Gothenburg summit, the Committee criticized the police for flaws in the planning of the operation and handling of police reinforcements. It also found serious deficiencies in crowd management training of officers and a lack of background knowledge among the police officers on duty about the groups involved in the protests and the social issues that they raised. The Committee was particularly critical of the planning, preparation and implementation of the police operation at Hvitfeldtska school, and found that it disproportionately obstructed the freedom of movement and assembly of the people on the school's premises. The Committee found that police had violated various legal provisions in connection with the treatment of people arrested. The Committee noted that many demonstrators reported police use of abusive language during the operation at the school.

• In June, following an investigation initiated by the parliamentary Ombudsman into the mass arrests at Hvitfeldtska school, the chief police commissioner in charge of the operation was charged with "unlawful detention" and misconduct in public duty. His trial was due to start in January 2004.

• In May the prosecutor in charge of the third investigation into the shooting of Hannes Westberg, one of the demonstrators seriously injured by police at the time of the EU Summit, decided that no charges should be brought against the police officers involved.

Refugees and asylum-seekers

During the year a broader range of asylum applications was considered to be "manifestly unfounded" even though the legislation was unchanged and the profile of arriving asylum-seekers remained largely the same. AI believed that the accelerated procedure used to determine these claims fell short of the requirements international standards demand of a fair asylum procedure. The claimants were, among other things, denied access to legal aid and were not protected against being forcibly returned to their home countries or a third country pending appeal against an initial rejection of their claim.

AI also expressed concern that the Swedish government on several occasions referred to the changed situation after 11 September 2001 as a reason to introduce carrier sanctions (penalties against carriers who transport inadequately documented passengers, including asylum-seekers).

• AI continued to express concern about the case of two Egyptian asylum-seekers, Muhammad Muhammad Suleiman Ibrahim El-Zari and Ahmed Hussein Mustafa Kamil Agiza, who were forcibly returned to Egypt in 2001 despite a serious risk that upon their return they would face grave human rights violations. AI had been concerned that the Swedish authorities accepted assurances given by the Egyptian authorities, even though the two asylum-seekers concerned and their lawyer had not been notified of the assurances or been given an opportunity to comment on them. Furthermore, their deportation had taken place on the day of the final decision on their asylum application, thus preventing the submission of an individual communication to international human rights monitoring bodies that could have scrutinized the decision of the Swedish authorities prior to their removal. In January AI expressed concern that the socalled assurances had not been fulfilled, and that the Swedish authorities had been unable to provide detailed information about the charges brought against the two men, the dates of the trial and the nature of the court that would hear the trial.

Swedish national held in US custody in Cuba

In February the head of the legal division at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs requested the immediate release of the Swedish national held in US custody at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on grounds that there was no legitimate basis in international law to hold him. The Swedish authorities also expressed concern that the US practice might lead to the evolution of a norm of customary international law.