Netherlands,
Sweden: Bar Deportations to
Torture in Iran
09 Oct 2006 12:58:22 GMT
Source:
Human Rights Watch
(Brussels, October 6, 2006) As the Netherlands
mulls resuming deportations of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender asylum
seekers back to Iran, and Sweden begins such deportations again, both European
governments must adhere to their international legal obligations not to send
people back to the risk of torture, Human Rights Watch said today. In letters
to Dutch
and Swedish
authorities, Human Rights Watch said that states cannot return people to
countries where they face torture, ill-treatment or death. "As the Ahmedinejad government cracks down on dissent, this is the
wrong time for the European governments to be considering new expulsions of gay
or lesbian asylum seekers to Iran," said Scott Long, director of Human
Rights Watch's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights Program. "Penalties
for homosexual conduct in Iran
range from torture to death. Returning people to the risk of torture would make
the Netherlands and Sweden
complicit in their fate."
Both governments imposed a
moratorium on the deportation of rejected gay and lesbian asylum seekers to Iran in 2005
after reports of executions there for homosexual conduct. In February 2006,
Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk first
declared her intention to end the moratorium, stating that "It appears
that there are no cases of an execution on the basis of the sole fact that
someone is homosexual. ... For homosexual men and women it is not totally
impossible to function in society, although they should be wary of coming out
of the closet too openly."
But after strong protests
from Dutch civil society and international human rights organizations,
including Human Rights Watch, Verdonk reinstated the
ban for six more months, pending a review of conditions in Iran. That
review is currently being completed.
Meanwhile, Sweden on September 29 announced that it would
resume deporting gay and lesbians fleeing from persecution in Iran. Almost
immediately, the Swedish Immigration Department decided to return a gay man to Iran, despite
evidence from medical experts that he had previously undergone torture there. The
case is under appeal.
Article 111 of Iran's criminal
code, the Code of Islamic Punishments, states that lavat
(sexual intercourse between men) "is punishable by death." Under
Articles 121 and122 of the Penal Code, tafkhiz
(non-penetrative "foreplay" between men) is punishable by 100 lashes
for each partner and by death on the fourth conviction. Article 123 of the
Penal Code further provides that, "If two men who are not related by blood
lie naked under the same cover without any necessity," each one will
receive 99 lashes. Articles 127 to 134 stipulate that the punishment for sexual
intercourse between women is 100 lashes; if the offense
is repeated three times, the punishment is execution.
Human Rights Watch has
documented torture and executions for homosexual conduct in Iran. Meanwhile,
the government of President MahmoudAhmedinejad has tightened restrictions on civil society and
punishments for dissent in recent months. Executions have increased, including
death sentences for morals offenses. Human Rights
Watch has received reliable reports that eight women and two men now face death
by stoning after they were convicted of adultery.
"Persecution for
homosexual conduct in Iran
is documented and undeniable," said Long. "Sending
gay and lesbian asylum seekers back to face torture is a clear violation of
international law."
The European Convention on
Human Rights prohibits states from deporting individuals to countries where
they may be at risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Last
year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Netherlands could not proceed with a deportation
to Eritrea
due to such a risk.
The UN Convention against
Torture, to which the Netherlands and Sweden are parties, states in Article 3
that, "No State shall expel, return (refouler)
or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for
believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture." It
also requires that "for the purpose of determining whether there are such
grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant
considerations, including where applicable, the existence in the State
concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights."