TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP2 (Applicant): L'alimentation entérale de Vincent ne pose strictement aucune difficulté.
AP2 (Applicant): Je vous l'ai mimé tout à l'heure.
AP2 (Applicant): On insère la sonde et on la retire quand l'alimentation est faite.
AP2 (Applicant): En revanche, il y a une similitude entre la dialyse et l'alimentation.
AP2 (Applicant): C'est que dans les deux cas, les soins ne sont pas procurés pour améliorer la santé, mais pour maintenir la personne en bonne santé, en bon état, parce que ça correspond, en fait, à un besoin essentiel et fondamental.
AP2 (Applicant): Vous avez demandé enfin ce qu'il en était de la procédure collégiale et si un médecin doit avoir établi des conclusions médicales avant de lancer cette procédure.
AP2 (Applicant): Oui et non.
AP2 (Applicant): La procédure collégiale est censée éclairer le médecin sur la situation de santé et sur le fait de savoir si on est dans un stade d'obstination déraisonnable.
AP2 (Applicant): C'est la raison pour laquelle, dans le cadre de cette procédure collégiale, le médecin doit s'entourer au moins d'un autre médecin.
AP2 (Applicant): Bien sûr, le médecin qui soigne le patient aura un premier avis, mais il doit être suffisamment ouvert, doit être suffisamment à l'écoute pour qu'un autre médecin, qui est nécessairement un médecin spécialisé dans le domaine qui concerne le patient, eh bien, puisse apporter son propre éclairage.
AP2 (Applicant): Mais dans un deuxième temps, lorsque la procédure sera ouverte, qu'on tiendra compte de la volonté personnelle de la personne, à savoir ses directives anticipées, si elles ont été rédigées, la personne de confiance, si cette scie a été nommée, et puis enfin, on entendra la famille pour savoir ce qu'il en est.
AP2 (Applicant): Donc, l'aspect médical précède la question de la volonté personnelle.
AP2 (Applicant): La volonté personnelle peut également entrer en compte au début, puisque c'est également au vu d'éventuelles directives anticipées qui auraient été rédigées, que le médecin doit ouvrir la procédure collégiale.
AP2 (Applicant): Donc, les choses, en réalité, sur ce point, au moins théoriquement, vont de pair.
AP2 (Applicant): Le drame, c'est que dans notre cas particulier, et vous l'avez bien compris, le médecin avait déjà son opinion toute faite, et sa procédure collégiale a été purement formelle, destinée uniquement à donner un semblant de bonne gestion administrative.
AP2 (Applicant): Je conclue simplement en disant que la loi Leonetti, dans ses principes posés, est une bonne loi.
AP2 (Applicant): Et c'est aussi une loi qui doit être améliorée sur des points graves, sur des points importants, parce que seule cette amélioration pourrait donner de véritables garanties aux personnes pour lesquelles cette loi est faite.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci, M. Paillot.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je pose la question aux tierces parties.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Est-ce que vous voulez brièvement répondre à l'une ou l'autre des questions qui a été posée et que vous vous sentirez concerné?
TP1 (ThirdParty): Oui, M. le Président.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Je parlerai au nom de Rachel, de Marie Geneviève et de François, qui voient régulièrement Vincent, et qui voient ce qu'on imagine les rétractions tendineuses qui, malheureusement, le font souffrir, ce que les experts avaient déjà expliqué au Conseil d'Etat.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Mais si j'ai bien compris, ces derniers temps, il y aurait même des complications digestives.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Vincent ne supporterait plus cette alimentation artificielle et ces sources de nombreuses complications, si j'ai bien compris son état aujourd'hui.
TP1 (ThirdParty): Donc voilà ce que je peux dire.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci bien.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous en arrivons...
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Vous voulez...
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Oui, très brièvement, sans s'engager maintenant dans un dialogue.
AP2 (Applicant): Pendant un certain nombre de mois, les parents de Vincent ont constaté qu'en effet, celui-ci avait des problèmes de digestion et ils ont demandé à l'hôpital de réduire son alimentation parce qu'en fait, il recevait trop d'alimentation par sa sonde.
AP2 (Applicant): L'hôpital a mis un peu de temps à répondre et finalement a réduit son alimentation.
AP2 (Applicant): Aujourd'hui, Vincent va très bien.
AP1 (Applicant): Et Monsieur le Président, si vous permettez, sur le deuxième point.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mais j'ai donné la parole à la tierce partie pour répondre à des questions qui ont été posées par le juge De Gaetano.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je crois que vous avez eu l'occasion de répondre à toutes ces questions, de sorte que nous en arrivons maintenant au terme de l'audience.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Et je remercie les comparants qui ont assisté la Cour par leurs interventions et leurs réponses à ces questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La Cour va maintenant délibérer sur la recevabilité et le fond, et l'arrêt sera rendu ultérieurement et les parties seront informées de la date dûe prononcée.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of F.G. against Sweden.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The case was lodged with the court on the 12th of July, 2011, under Article 34 of the Convention by an Iranian national who has been granted an unanimity.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 16th of January, 2014, the chamber of the Fifth Section delivered its judgment in the case, finding that the implementation of the expulsion order against the applicant would not give rise to a violation of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): On the 16th of April, 2014, the applicant requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): And the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on the 2nd of June, 2014.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Under Rule 44, Paragraph 3 of the Rules of Court, leave was granted to intervene as third parties in the written proceedings before the Grand Chamber to the European Center for Law and Justice, the Alliance Defending Freedom, assisted by Jubilee Campaign, the AIR Center, the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, the International Commission of Jurists, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Anders
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Rönquist, Ambassador and Director General for Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by Ms. Helen Lindquist, Ms. Maria Westman-Clément,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and Ms. Linda Öman Bristow Advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): The applicant is represented by Mr. David Loveday, Counsel,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): assisted by Ms. Hanna Pettersson and Ms. Angela
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Evans, Advisors.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I also welcome the delegation of Albanian magistrates and lawyers, and the delegation of Turkish prosecutors who are visiting the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Turkish has been authorized for the benefit of the delegation of Turkish prosecutors attending this hearing.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): This interpreting is not arranged by the court, and no transcription of the oral translation will be included in the official record of the proceedings.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Mr. Loveday for the applicant will speak first,
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): and then Mr. Rönquist for the government.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I call Mr. Loveday.
AP1 (Applicant): the situation for human rights in Iran is extremely troubling.
AP1 (Applicant): Before the court, there is overwhelming objective evidence that perceived political and religious dissidents who attract the attention of the Iranian authorities can face a real risk of arrest, detention, ill treatment, lengthy prison sentences, and in the worst cases, the imposition of the death penalty.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant fled Iran in 2009 after being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of the Iranian authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): Seeking protection in Sweden, he has subsequently converted to the Christian faith.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite this, Sweden has made a deliberate decision to send the applicant back to Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): Neither the Swedish authorities nor the majority of the fifth section of this court took account of his previous ill treatment in their assessment of future risk and when they concluded that he could be sent to Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): What's more, as the government itself accepts, and I quote here from paragraph 65 of its observations, no thorough assessment of the applicant's risk of persecution due to his conversion upon return to Iran has been made.
AP1 (Applicant): The government nevertheless urges this court to hold that the convention would allow Sweden to send the applicant to Iran today if it wished.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant has complained under Articles 2 and 3, but for ease of reference and in accordance with the court's case law, my submissions now focus on Article 3 alone.
AP1 (Applicant): We say that there have been serious procedural failings at the national level, failings reflected in part in the majority judgment of the fifth section of this court.
AP1 (Applicant): But most crucially, we say that the applicant would face a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, and in the worst case, the death sentence on return.
AP1 (Applicant): Consideration of both points requires a careful understanding of the facts.
AP1 (Applicant): In the interest of time and the applicant's safety, I can't repeat in open court all of the evidence that we've presented to the Grand Chamber.
AP1 (Applicant): What can be said today is that FG is a 52-year-old Iranian national.
AP1 (Applicant): In Iran, his work as a web technician and university administrator brought him into contact with progressive academics, and he joined a growing movement for political reform.
AP1 (Applicant): In June 2009, a presidential election was held in which the reformist Mousavi opposed the incumbent, Ahmadinejad.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant worked on the Mousavi campaign, assisting with IT and distributing information.
AP1 (Applicant): The election was declared for Ahmadinejad.
AP1 (Applicant): There were widespread accusations of electoral fraud, and demonstrations against the government ensued, demonstrations in which the applicant participated.
AP1 (Applicant): Arrests and abuse followed in the resulting clampdown by the state.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant has maintained that in September 2009, he was arrested by the Revolutionary Guard and detained for 18 days without any kind of court hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): The majority of that period he spent in solitary confinement.
AP1 (Applicant): His cell was so small he could not sit and stretch out his legs.
AP1 (Applicant): He was beaten.
AP1 (Applicant): He was deprived of sleep.
AP1 (Applicant): He was interrogated about who he was working with and which countries he was receiving orders from.
AP1 (Applicant): The guards tried to force the applicant to become a collaborator.
AP1 (Applicant): They made threats against his family.
AP1 (Applicant): The guards told him that he was Muharrab, an enemy of God, and that the judge had said he must be killed.
AP1 (Applicant): He was subjected to mock execution.
AP1 (Applicant): The court's existing case law, such as the El-Masri judgment, leaves no doubt at all that the treatment to which the applicant maintains he was subjected was inhuman and degrading.
AP1 (Applicant): On the 19th day, the applicant was taken blindfolded from his cell.
AP1 (Applicant): When the blindfold was removed, he discovered that he'd been taken to the Revolutionary Court.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant has been very clear about the identity of the judge in charge, as can be seen from the transcript of his asylum interview at page 6 of our appendix 3.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, just over a year after his asylum interview, the Council of Ministers of the EU required Sweden and the other EU member states to ban this very judge from EU territory and freeze his assets on the grounds that he was among a number of specified individuals responsible for serious human rights violations in Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): As the relevant council decision shows, the applicant correctly identified not only the court to which this judge belonged, but also his department number within that court.
AP1 (Applicant): International media reports from as recently as this summer confirmed that the same judge remains in post at the Revolutionary Court in Tehran.
AP1 (Applicant): They identify him as a member of a group of judges manipulating the trial process and imposing unduly harsh punishments in order to spearhead a fresh crackdown on perceived dissidents under the influence of Iran's intelligence and security apparatus.
AP1 (Applicant): By the time this applicant appeared in the Revolutionary Court, he had been broken by his treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): He went along with whatever the court said just to get out.
AP1 (Applicant): He was released after providing various guarantees, including a promise to collaborate and to present himself whenever summoned.
AP1 (Applicant): When he returned to his office, he found it had been ransacked and material critical of the regime had been taken.
AP1 (Applicant): Shortly thereafter, he received a summons from a state prosecutor under the auspices of the Revolutionary Court to attend Evin prison at the beginning of November 2009.
AP1 (Applicant): Fearing for his safety, he refused to comply with that summons.
AP1 (Applicant): Instead, he used a smuggler to flee Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): He did so illegally without the exit authorizations required under Iranian law.
AP1 (Applicant): Reaching Sweden, he sought international protection.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant first gave a detailed account of the experiences that led him to flee Iran in an asylum interview before the Swedish Migration Board in March 2010.
AP1 (Applicant): Since then, only one independent tribunal has considered the applicant's oral testimony, and only one national court has reached a substantive judgment about the risks he faces.
AP1 (Applicant): That was the administrative court in Stockholm sitting as a migration court.
AP1 (Applicant): In its judgment of March 2011, the migration court ruled, and I quote, in the court's opinion, over the course of the proceedings, the appellant has provided a consistent and, in all essential respects, credible account in support of his application for protection in Sweden.
AP1 (Applicant): Such uncertainties as the Migration Board has pointed to in its decision, he has been able to explain in an acceptable way on this appeal and at the oral hearing.
AP1 (Applicant): The court, therefore, bases its assessment of whether he risks being subjected to persecution on his account.
AP1 (Applicant): Then there's the question of the applicant's faith.
AP1 (Applicant): In Iran, he had been a nominal but inactive Muslim who had expressed skepticism of Islam and who had disagreed with the Islamic revolution.
AP1 (Applicant): His first encounter with Christianity appears to have happened by chance.
AP1 (Applicant): He and some fellow asylum seekers out in a Swedish town one winter evening happened to enter an open prayer meeting to escape from the cold.
AP1 (Applicant): After returning to further meetings and study sessions, he converted and was baptized in January 2010.
AP1 (Applicant): Nearly five years have passed since then, and the applicant's faith has continued to develop and to deepen.
AP1 (Applicant): One thing that has remained constant from the earliest days of his conversion is the relationship he experiences with God.
AP1 (Applicant): He sees it as a relationship of love, which is, to him, personal and indeed private.
AP1 (Applicant): He's reluctant to discuss this core aspect of his faith publicly or with people he is not close to, in much the same way that one is reluctant to discuss publicly the most intimate details of one's marriage.
AP1 (Applicant): But not only does he publicly avow the fact that he's a Christian, he also practices his faith in public.
AP1 (Applicant): For example, he receives and distributes the communion in open services.
AP1 (Applicant): He leads a Bible study group.
AP1 (Applicant): It should not be thought that because of how he sees his relationship with God, he accepts uncritically all practices and viewpoints that are discernible within Christianity in its various forms.
AP1 (Applicant): Far from it.
AP1 (Applicant): He engages critically with Christian theology and practice.
AP1 (Applicant): His mistrust of superstition has led him to question beliefs that are attributable to some within this Christian fold.
AP1 (Applicant): What's more, his moderate approach to Christianity has led him to doubt the more extreme actions of some Christians who he believes to be charlatans.
AP1 (Applicant): In fact, this contributed to his decision to leave one particular congregation in Sweden.
AP1 (Applicant): At the same time, he has developed an increasingly critical view of Islam, both as practiced in Iran and generally.
AP1 (Applicant): In written evidence before the Grand Chamber, he has made a number of statements about Islam, about the prophet Muhammad, and about Muslim religious leaders, particularly in Iran, which we would submit are liable to be considered highly inflammatory by those who maintain the state religion in Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): It's equally clear from this written evidence that the applicant's attitude to religion is inextricably entwined with his political attitudes, including his attitudes towards gender equality and the situation of violence and international insecurity in the Middle East.
AP1 (Applicant): That his religion and politics should have such a close relation to each other is hardly surprising, given the applicant's past experiences at the hands of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): What emerges from his evidence to the Grand Chamber, and indeed from his substantive asylum interview in Sweden, is the applicant defines Christianity and Islam in opposition to each other.
AP1 (Applicant): Since Christian believers have direct personal access to a loving God, he believes that there is no need for a priestly class to mediate between believers and God or to prescribe rules of behavior.
AP1 (Applicant): In the applicant's view, where Islam is religion, Christianity thus represents freedom from religion.
AP1 (Applicant): For all that, the applicant's faith is no less a religion or a belief for the purposes of the convention.
AP1 (Applicant): On any view, his Christian faith and beliefs have attained the level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance that would attract the right to respect under Article 9.
AP1 (Applicant): Perhaps the most eloquent expression of this has been the applicant's clear reluctance, ever since seeking protection in Sweden, to denigrate his faith as he sees it by invoking it as a means of securing protection, despite the efforts of a series of legal representatives to raise the matter on his behalf.
AP1 (Applicant): Despite all of this, the Swedish authorities have ruled that it's safe to send the applicant to Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): The first question for the court is whether Sweden has violated Article 3 in its procedural aspect by failing to conduct the necessary, careful, and rigorous examination of the risks which face the applicant on the return.
AP1 (Applicant): We have identified three clear reasons why we say the Swedish authorities and courts have failed to meet their obligations in this regard.
AP1 (Applicant): First, the migration court failed to take account of the fact he has already been subjected to ill treatment in Iran when assessing the risk he might face on return.
AP1 (Applicant): His previous ill treatment is of particular significance.
AP1 (Applicant): As this court has previously recognized, for example, in RC against Sweden, evidence of previous ill treatment creates a presumption, which it's for the state to rebut, that risk of similar treatment will persist on return.
AP1 (Applicant): We would respectfully submit that the majority of the fifth section of this court fell into the same error.
AP1 (Applicant): In its judgment, there is not a single reference to the ill treatment to which the applicant on the migration court's findings must already have been subjected in Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): Second, as explained in our written observations, the national authorities imposed on the applicant a standard of proof of future risk that, on any view, was too high.
AP1 (Applicant): Their assessment of future risk was tainted and unsound.
AP1 (Applicant): Third, the Swedish authorities failed adequately to assess the risks facing the applicant due to his religion.
AP1 (Applicant): As I've already highlighted, the government now accepts that no thorough assessment of the applicant's risk of persecution due to his conversion has been made.
AP1 (Applicant): It's important to be absolutely clear about the context for this.
AP1 (Applicant): Contrary to what the government has suggested, at every single stage of the national proceedings, the written pleadings and arguments submitted on the applicant's behalf contended that he did face risk on grounds of his religious conversion.
AP1 (Applicant): The applicant allowed the migration board to question him about his conversion during his asylum interview, and he actively assisted by providing documentary evidence of his baptism.
AP1 (Applicant): On his appeal to the migration court against the deportation order, the migration board made clear that they did not dispute that he could have converted to Christianity.
AP1 (Applicant): Yet the migration court did not reach any assessment of the risks facing the applicant as a result of his religious conversion.
AP1 (Applicant): The sole explanation for this appears in the migration court's summary of what the applicant told them during the course of the oral hearing, and I quote, he does not invoke his conversion as a ground for asylum, but rather considers it to be something personal.
AP1 (Applicant): However, his conversion is patently going to cause problems for him on his return.
AP1 (Applicant): It's true that the applicant repeatedly made clear that he did not wish to denigrate his newfound faith by treating it as a means of buying protection in Sweden, but in our submission, that did not absolve the national court from carrying out a careful and rigorous assessment of the risks facing the applicant on all grounds.
AP1 (Applicant): In our written submissions, we've explained why, even if the convention does allow an individual to waive his or her Article 3 rights, this applicant never made a valid waiver of his right, both to protection from being sentenced to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment, and also his rights to a rigorous assessment of that risk, whatever its sources.
AP1 (Applicant): But more fundamentally, we submit that individuals cannot waive or limit their rights or the state's corresponding obligations under Article 3.
AP1 (Applicant): The court has repeatedly emphasized that the protection to be guaranteed under Article 3 is absolute and non-derogable.
AP1 (Applicant): It is not theoretical or illusory.
AP1 (Applicant): It must be practical and effective.
AP1 (Applicant): What's more, the doctrinal basis of the extension of Article 3 protection to expulsion cases is in our submission clear, for example, from the Sering judgment.
AP1 (Applicant): It is that it would offend against the convention for a contracting state to expel an individual to a particular country when the state knows or ought to know that there is a real risk that the individual would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment is sent there.
AP1 (Applicant): It's the state's knowledge or deemed knowledge that is key.
AP1 (Applicant): If, as the court has repeatedly made clear, the state's obligations under Article 3 cannot be watered down on the grounds that an applicant is, for example, the most despicable criminal or terrorist, they can hardly be watered down on the basis that an applicant is anxious not to exploit his newfound faith.