TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): In that case, what will happen at the national level?
AP1 (Applicant): Well, nothing as far as we can see, because his only option then would be to try and raise any ground of risk as a new circumstance.
AP1 (Applicant): And of course, as the migration court held several years ago, religion is not a new circumstance.
AP1 (Applicant): And even at that stage, the further aspects of his faith and the further factors pointing to risk arising from his faith, which had arisen at that stage, even those were not treated as new circumstances.
AP1 (Applicant): Nor did the Swedish legislation allow the national authorities, having held there were no new circumstances, to go on and ask, well, even if they're not new, is there a reasonable excuse why they weren't raised earlier?
AP1 (Applicant): So our very real fear is that if the court were to find, based on what the national authorities could be expected to know at the time, there wasn't a procedural error, and then the case is sent back to Sweden, so to speak, that the Swedish government would enforce the deportation order.
AP1 (Applicant): And that would mean that the applicant would be sent to Iran to all the very real and extremely troubling risks that face him there without any assessment of the risks facing him on grounds of his religion.
GR1 (Government): First to the question of Judge Spano regarding the evidentiary evidence on summoning to the Revolutionary Court.
GR1 (Government): And the migration authorities have ruled that there is a lack of credibility of those documents since they are photocopies.
GR1 (Government): They lack important information such as case number and the reason for the summon.
GR1 (Government): And it has not been possible, it's not possible for the national migration authorities to verify the authenticity of such documents.
GR1 (Government): Then we have the question of the situation today.
GR1 (Government): As we already stated in our introduction, the applicant has not substantiated genuine belief when it comes to religion.
GR1 (Government): The applicant has to submit a new application regarding impediment of enforcement to the Migration Board if he so wishes.
GR1 (Government): He could do so whenever he wishes.
GR1 (Government): He has not done so for the last three years.
GR1 (Government): It is at the national level that such new claims should be addressed.
GR1 (Government): As to the question put by Judge Jäderblom, it is indeed very common that Iranians seeking asylum in Sweden do invoke religious conversion if they are not granted asylum on the basis of political activities invoked.
GR1 (Government): These are things, arguments regarding their surplus activities.
GR1 (Government): Often they are raised after the expulsion order has gained legal force.
GR1 (Government): I cannot give any specific figure as to how many are invoking conversion at a late stage of the national proceedings, but it seems that it is indeed a majority of the cases of Iranians not given asylum on other grounds.
GR1 (Government): And I should also add that there are a number of free churches in Sweden who contact such persons, encouraging them to convert.
GR1 (Government): As to the question of Judge Bianco, we have unfortunately not been able to study the judgment by the European Court of Justice of yesterday, but as we already stated in our oral presentations, the Swedish migration authorities have fulfilled their obligation to examine all grounds for protection.
GR1 (Government): Our migration authorities can, however, not force an asylum seeker to invoke either political, religious or grounds of sexual orientation if they for various reasons wish not to do so.
GR1 (Government): As to the question of Judge Pinto de Abicocque, it is of course not possible for the government to guarantee that any person expelled from Sweden would not risk the death penalty.
GR1 (Government): However, we have legislation, migration authorities and courts that provide legal guarantees that uphold the principle of non-fulfillment.
GR1 (Government): And finally, as to the question by Judge De Gaetano, whether it is the government's position that the applicant is a real, genuine convert.
GR1 (Government): Neither the Swedish government nor its agent has met the applicant.
GR1 (Government): It is not up to the government to make an assessment.
GR1 (Government): It follows from the Swedish constitution and the principles of rule of law that the government may not interfere with the tasks and the judgments, the application of the law entrusted to independent authorities and courts.
GR1 (Government): It is up to the migration authority to examine any new claim if new circumstances are presented by the applicant.
GR1 (Government): It is only the applicant himself who can contribute to the substantiation of the genuinity of his religious belief.
GR1 (Government): As already mentioned, the applicant has not made any such application during the last three years.
GR1 (Government): It is at the national level that such new claims should be examined.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I declare open the public hearing on the merits in the case of J.K. and others versus Sweden.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was lodged with the court on 13 September 2012 under Article 34 of the Convention by three Iraqi nationals, Mr. J.K., his wife, and son.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The application was allocated to the fifth section of the court, pursuant to Rule 52, Paragraph 1 of the Rules of the Court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 4 June 2015, a chamber of that section declared the complaint concerning Article 3 of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible and delivered a judgment in which it held that the implementation of the deputation order against the applicants would not give rise to a violation of Article 3.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): On 25 August 2015, the applicants requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber in accordance with Article 43 of the Convention, and the panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 19 October 2015.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The government are represented by their agent, Mr. Anders Rönquist, ambassador, assisted by Mrs. Katarina Fabian, Mrs. Helen  Lindquist, Mrs. Alexandra Wilton Wahren, Mrs. Linda  Öman  Bristow, and Åsa Carlander Hemingway
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): advisors.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): The applicants are represented by Mrs. Canela Skyfacos, counsel, assisted by Mrs. Åsa Nilsson, advisor.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I also welcome the groups of judges from Bulgaria, Kosovo, and Ukraine who are on a study visit to the court.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): Mrs. Skyfacos for the applicants will speak first, and then Mr. Rönquist for the government.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I would explain that in addition to interpreting in the two official languages of the court, English and French, interpreting into Albanian, Serbian, and Ukrainian has been authorized for the benefit of the groups of judges from Kosovo and Ukraine attending this hearing.
Guido Raimondi (JudgeP): I call Mrs. Skyfacos.
AP1 (Applicant): Thank you Mr. President, honourable members of the court.
AP1 (Applicant): We are gathered here today to find out whether Jäger and his family's expulsion orders would give a rise to, would give a breach against Article 3 of the Convention of Human Rights.
AP1 (Applicant): The main legal question in this case concerns the burden of proof.
AP1 (Applicant): We argue that this should shift and rest upon the Swedish government.
AP1 (Applicant): For my clients, this case ultimately concerns whether they will or will not face torture, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment upon a return to Iraq.
AP1 (Applicant): What we are trying to predict is whether Jäger and his family will face a treatment in relation to Article 3 of the Convention upon a return to his home country.
AP1 (Applicant): If the courts come to the wrong conclusion today, following the government's position in this matter, it will lead to the devastating consequences for my clients.
AP1 (Applicant): Before the court, we cannot stress enough that an incorrect result most likely will lead to the death of my clients.
AP2 (Applicant): From the beginning of 1990s, our client, JK, ran a company in the construction and transport area.
AP2 (Applicant): 2003, when the American troops entered Iraq, JK was exclusively contracted by them.
AP2 (Applicant): JK was working as a constructor, helping the American troops until 2008 in Iraq.
AP2 (Applicant): This is why the threats against JK and his family's lives started.
AP2 (Applicant): This is also the main reason to why JK and his family can't return to their homeland.
AP2 (Applicant): In 2004, it had become public knowledge in Baghdad that JK collaborated with the American troops.
AP2 (Applicant): After this, the threats from Al-Qaeda began.
AP2 (Applicant): JK, his family, and JK's employees were in danger.
AP2 (Applicant): Due to the collaboration, JK became victim of an assassination attempt in Baghdad, 2004.
AP2 (Applicant): JK was shot in his stomach, leg, and hand.
AP2 (Applicant): Unfortunately, this was just the beginning of the threats.
AP2 (Applicant): After this, which the court is well aware of, a series of violent action was directed towards JK and his family.
AP2 (Applicant): The Swedish authorities, as well as the fifth section of the court, have determined that JK has been exposed to ill treatment during 2004 to 2008.
AP2 (Applicant): The ill treatment in question includes everything from the murder of JK's daughter to the destruction of the family's home and the eternal chase after the family.
AP2 (Applicant): After 2008, the Swedish government, as well as the fifth section of the court, is questioning JK's statements.
AP2 (Applicant): After the murder on JK's daughter, he stopped working for the American troops.
AP2 (Applicant): The family moved around Baghdad in order to seek safe zones and hide.
AP2 (Applicant): While hiding, JK was notified that he was placed on the Al-Qaeda death list.
AP2 (Applicant): Due to JK's collaboration with the American troops, the domestic authorities in Iraq could not protect the family.
AP2 (Applicant): At the time, as well as in present time, the authorities were highly corrupt and infiltrated by Al-Qaeda members.
AP2 (Applicant): In 2010, JK saw a chance to highlight the situation and protect his family by telling everyone that the government officials could not protect him and other citizens from Al-Qaeda.
AP2 (Applicant): JK participated in a televised interview, together with representatives for the Iraqi government.
AP2 (Applicant): JK's own situation was discussed, and JK criticized the government.
AP2 (Applicant): The interview was broadcasted nationwide in Iraq on Al-Hara Channel, and the criticism led to that JK got the authorities against him.
AP2 (Applicant): After this, the applicants fled to Sweden and applied for international protection.
AP2 (Applicant): In September 2011, former neighbors notified the applicants that members of Al-Qaeda were still searching for them in Iraq.
AP2 (Applicant): At this time, Al-Qaeda also destroyed the applicant's house.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swedish authorities, as well as the Fifth Section of the Court, has wrongfully stated that J.K., after 2008,
AP1 (Applicant): had not made it probable that he and his family have a well-founded fear of being subjected to protection from a treatment upon a return to Iraq.
AP1 (Applicant): If we look at the evidence that J.K.
AP1 (Applicant): relied to support his later need for protection, we can conclude that this material is credible.
AP1 (Applicant): J.K. has submitted a witness certificate
AP1 (Applicant): showing that al-Qaeda is still searching for them, a police report stating that his house had been destroyed in 2011, and also a recording of the debates that took place in international media.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swedish government stated that the police report and the witness certificate was of simple nature and could not be assigned any real value.
AP1 (Applicant): They also stated that the recording had been downloaded in 2008 and that J.K. had invoked the submitted evidence
AP1 (Applicant): late in the assignment process.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, they argued that J.K. had damaged his credibility.
AP1 (Applicant): Due to the ex officio inquiry principle that is well established in the Swedish law and which the government have accounted for in the latest observation, paragraph 50, the immigration court must take all relative circumstances into account and ensure that the investigation of a case is adequate and complete.
AP1 (Applicant): Even though the initial burden of proof rests upon the applicant, the obligation to elect and evaluate the relative facts is shared between the applicant and the immigration authorities and courts.
AP1 (Applicant): It is questionable what kind of investigation that was made in this matter to somehow confirm or deny the authenticity of the submitted evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, the Swedish authorities haven't made any effort to get the submitted evidence verified.
AP1 (Applicant): They have only stated that the documents were of simple nature.
AP1 (Applicant): Since they usually perform authentication of various documents large, we question whether the Swedish authorities in this case have acted in accordance with the inquiry principle.
AP1 (Applicant): In order to fulfill its obligation to investigate, the Swedish authorities should have contacted the Iraqi authorities to verify that J.K. was telling the truth.
AP1 (Applicant): The fact that he did not do so only leads to the conclusion that the Swedish government wanted to avoid the truth.
AP1 (Applicant): At least a verification of the given police report should have been done.
AP1 (Applicant): And why should the Swedish government have this extensive investigation burden?
AP1 (Applicant): As the courts understand, we have to do with unequal parties in this case.
AP1 (Applicant): J.K. is a man who fled from his home country.
AP1 (Applicant): His abilities to in a satisfactory way get the evidence verified are close to impossible.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swedish government, on the other hand, have an unrestricted financial resources and a wide network.
AP1 (Applicant): The parties are just as equal as David and Goliath.
AP1 (Applicant): Sweden has the ability to question their expert and to question the Swedish ambassador in order to get the documents verified.
AP1 (Applicant): This has been done in many other asylum cases.
AP1 (Applicant): It is interesting that the Immigration Office has not even developed why the submitted evidence were to be considered of simple nature.
AP1 (Applicant): We don't even know who did the evaluation.
AP1 (Applicant): It is also interesting that the Swedish government did not question the police report stating the death of J.K.'s daughter,
AP1 (Applicant): though they questioned the report showing that J.K.'s house was destroyed in 2011.
AP1 (Applicant): Due to the fact that the Swedish court, as well as the Sixth Section of this court, considers that J.K. is not credible in his testimony
AP1 (Applicant): because he initially did not mention some circumstances, J.K. did not get a sign with a proof-of-life provision
AP1 (Applicant): known as benefit of the doubt.
AP1 (Applicant): Is it correct that the Swedish authority totally dismissed what J.K. was referring to
AP1 (Applicant): only because he did some statements about his past late in the process?
AP1 (Applicant): If the courts agree to this, we would like to draw the court's attention to certain aspects.
AP1 (Applicant): During the primary investigation at the immigration office, the investigator did not pay attention to what J.K. was stated.
AP1 (Applicant): In the view of this, we tried to get an all-on hearing at the immigration court.
AP1 (Applicant): This we were not granted, and J.K. did not get the opportunity
AP1 (Applicant): to account for his statements and to strengthen his credibility.
AP1 (Applicant): After this, the government has then chose to assess the processed evidence separately.
AP1 (Applicant): They mean that evidence upon 2008 are credible and that until this point, the applicant can be given the benefit of the doubt.
AP1 (Applicant): We question this approach, since J.K. has put forward a coherent statement
AP1 (Applicant): reflecting what he and his family has been through during the time before as well after 2008.
AP1 (Applicant): With current evident theories, the court must see to the collumative evidence presented upon a case and when to do an evaluation of the submitted evidence.
AP1 (Applicant): The government should not be able to go cherry-picking and choose to rely on which evidence they find suitable.
AP2 (Applicant): Moving on from the credibility assessment, in Toralia, the case Salashek v. Netherlands
AP2 (Applicant): states that it's the current situation in Iraq which are decisive and have to be considered in the court's assessment of the conditions.
AP2 (Applicant): In view of this, I want to begin by stating that it's remarkable that the Swedish government, despite available country information and despite orders from the court, have not developed or attached country information that is directly relevant to JK's primary need of protection.
AP2 (Applicant): This is remarkable, though, dissenting judge Supancic stated the following in the court's judgment from 4th of June, 2015.
AP2 (Applicant): The fact that someone had already been a direct victim of an attack of the sort described above should, in principle, lead this court to examine very carefully the unremitting danger to the applicants.
AP2 (Applicant): The Swedish government have, in relation to their attached information, focused on the general situation in Iraq.
AP2 (Applicant): They mean that the general situation, according to international reports, is not so serious as to cause a violation of Article III of the Convention by itself.
AP2 (Applicant): We would, however, like to address to the court that the current situation in Iraq are developing in a very worrying direction.
AP2 (Applicant): The government has stated that the general situation in Iraq is very problematic.
AP2 (Applicant): They have also stated that the situation has worsened after the American troops left 2011, considering the political tensions between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
AP2 (Applicant): The government have confirmed that Baghdad is extremely violent with bomb attacks, other explosions, kidnappings, and execution.
AP2 (Applicant): Despite this, the government mean that the situation in Iraq is not untrainable.
AP2 (Applicant): Submitted country information testifies on the opposite.
AP2 (Applicant): For example, recently published country information from Norway about the security situation in Baghdad shows that the capacity and integrity of the security and justice system currently has been weakened, and in some places, completely eroded.
AP2 (Applicant): An article by Institute for the Study of War from October 2015 also indicates that ISIS's next goal is set for Baghdad.
AP2 (Applicant): Regarding the government's provision concerning the legal system in Iraq and their willingness to make this appear as functioning, we also want to draw attention to the State Department's report on human rights in Iraq.
AP2 (Applicant): The report testifies, among other things, denial of fair and public trials and government corruption.
AP2 (Applicant): With this knowledge, it cannot be reasonable to send JK and his family back to Baghdad.
AP2 (Applicant): Our submitted country information testifies to an unsecure situation in Iraq.
AP2 (Applicant): The general situation is not the only foundation to why JK and his family cannot return to Iraq.
AP2 (Applicant): As mentioned earlier, JK had extensive cooperation with American troops until 2008.
AP2 (Applicant): This cooperation has been the reason to that JK and his family have been subjected to protective founding treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
AP2 (Applicant): Swedish authorities argue that this cooperation was a danger before, but not now.
AP2 (Applicant): However, there is evidence to the contrary.
AP2 (Applicant): Submitted country information suggests that former employees of American troops are sitting in a vulnerable situation.
AP2 (Applicant): Besides being seen as traitors to their homeland by al-Qaeda, ISIS are also a threat.
AP2 (Applicant): Filed country information testifies that ISIS sees former employees to American troops as direct targets.
AP2 (Applicant): A lot of former collaborators have lost their lives in areas that ISIS has taken control of.
AP2 (Applicant): Already in 2007, the American government realized the danger former collaborators were facing in Iraq.
AP2 (Applicant): Therefore, they provided an opportunity for them to apply for a special immigrant visa.
AP2 (Applicant): These visas were issued to prevent former collaborators from receiving threats against their lives.
AP2 (Applicant): Our submitted country information shows that further special immigrant visas are still justified for former collaborators.
AP2 (Applicant): In Vilvaraia and others versus United Kingdom, it has been determined that when an assessment of a person's ground for asylum takes place, this assessment shall be done based on the general situation in the home country, together with the applicant's individual reasons.
AP2 (Applicant): In order to make a correct assessment, it's important that the country information concerning the applicant's individual reasons is taken into consideration.
AP2 (Applicant): Swedish authorities have stated that it's almost seven years since JK and his family were exposed to protection founding treatment.
AP2 (Applicant): They mean that it's not likely that al-Qaeda still has an interest in them due to this, even though filed and submitted evidence shows that al-Qaeda and ISIS doesn't take the time aspect into account.
AP2 (Applicant): The Swedish government have not submitted evidence showing that if you once were put on the al-Qaeda death list, you get deleted from this list after a while.
AP2 (Applicant): The article from Wall Street Journal that we submitted also shows that collaborators, long after the termination of their employment, are living under a constant threat.
AP2 (Applicant): The Swedish government has in their observations, paragraph 65, concluded that al-Qaeda no longer operates in Baghdad and that they have not been punishing those who has been working and cooperating with American troops.
AP2 (Applicant): Our submitted country information give witness to the opposite.
AP2 (Applicant): Overall, our attached country information shows that JK and his family forthcoming have to fear for their lives upon their return.
AP2 (Applicant): They have to fear for their lives upon their return to Iraq, especially due to JK's former collaboration with the American troops.
AP2 (Applicant): JK and his family belongs to an especially vulnerable group.
AP1 (Applicant): We have now come to the part of this pleading that concerns the basis of our appeal.
AP1 (Applicant): Throughout the proceeding of this case, the Swedish Government, as well as the Fifth Section of this Court, has made a wrongful decision by placing the entire burden upon my clients.
AP1 (Applicant): The Swedish Government and the Fifth Section of the Court had done so without taking into account the e-treatment that Jake and his family already suffered.
AP1 (Applicant): In our request for appeal to the Grand Chamber, we stated that the burden of proof in this specific case should not follow the general rule that otherwise applies in asylum cases.
AP1 (Applicant): The initial burden of proof for protection against e-treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention lies upon the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): In this case, though, it is already determined that Jake and his family had been subjected to e-treatment.
AP1 (Applicant): Therefore, the burden of proof showing that the family would not be exposed to further e-treatment upon return to Iraq should rest on the departing States.
AP1 (Applicant): I have built this thesis on three grounds.