X v. Sweden

The author of the communication is X, a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo born in 1981. He claims that the State Party has violated his rights under articles 13, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Sweden on 23 March 1976. The author is not represented by counsel.

On 21 February 2025, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures, granted the author’s request that it ask the State Party to refrain from deporting him to the Democratic Republic of the Congo while his complaint was under consideration by the Committee. The State Party suspended the author’s deportation that same day.

The author applied for asylum in Sweden in 2014. In 2016, the Swedish Migration Agency rejected his application. The author’s successive appeals were dismissed in 2017.

In 2017, the author applied twice for a residence permit. Both applications were rejected by the Swedish Migration Agency.

On 17 June 2017, the author submitted a communication to the Committee, which was registered on 22 June 2017 as communication No. 2997/2017. He also submitted a request for interim measures to suspend his deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

In 2019, the author submitted another application for a Swedish residence permit. The Swedish Migration Agency granted him a residence permit that was valid from 23 April 2019 to 23 May 2020 and from 17 June 2020 to 17 July 2021.

Once the author had been granted a residence permit, the Committee, acting in accordance with rule 104 of its rules of procedure, discontinued its consideration of communication No. 2997/2017 on 25 July 2019.³

3. CCPR/C/126/D/2997/2017. ↩

On 1 April 2021, the author requested the extension of his Swedish residence permit. On 16 July 2021, the Swedish Migration Agency dismissed the request on the grounds that the deportation order against the author had expired on 29 May 2021.

The author subsequently filed another application for a Swedish residence permit on the basis of his family ties with M and their minor children. The Swedish Migration Agency rejected his application on 17 April 2024. On 28 November 2024, the Migration Court rejected the author’s appeal against the Agency’s decision. On 4 February 2025, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to admit the author’s appeal against the ruling of the Migration Court.

The author asserts that, by deporting him to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State Party would violate his rights under article 19 (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which prohibits the expulsion of a person to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is plagued by ongoing conflicts and wars and is not a safe place for the author. Some groups are hostile towards members of the Banyamulenge, the ethnic group to which the author belongs.

The author’s deportation would violate his right to respect for his family life, as guaranteed under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). His deportation would also constitute a violation of article 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which establishes that children must not be separated from their parents against their will. In his later comments, the author invokes articles 13, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant.

In its observations of 21 August 2025, the State Party claims that the communication is inadmissible and unsubstantiated. The author failed to exhaust domestic remedies. He did not file a new asylum application after the deportation order against him expired on 29 May 2021. Submitting such an application would give him the opportunity to put forward the above-mentioned arguments, and his deportation would be suspended until the conclusion of the proceedings. Through letters dated 13 October 2021 and 21 November 2023, the Swedish Migration Agency twice encouraged the author to file an asylum application so that his need for protection could be assessed. However, the author chose not to do so. In the absence of an asylum application, the grounds for asylum invoked by the author could not be examined. The author still has the option to apply for asylum, which would give rise to a full review of all the grounds for asylum invoked and enable him to receive a residence permit upon submission of the application. Moreover, his application would be reviewed in the light of relevant and up-to-date information concerning his country of origin. If he were to be deported, the deportation order could not be enforced until the issue of his residence permit had been settled through a final decision.

In his comments of 24 November 2025, the author invokes articles 13, 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant and articles 3 and 9 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. He states that, when he received the letters from the immigration authorities in 2021 and 2023 (see para. 4), he was awaiting a decision on his application to renew his residence permit. Even if he had applied for asylum, it would not necessarily have been granted, since the Swedish authorities had already rejected his first asylum application. Furthermore, he was unaware that he had the right to file another asylum application as he had not been provided with any information or guidance in that regard.

In its observations of 3 February 2026, the State Party reiterates that the author has not filed a new asylum application even though he has had the option to do so since the deportation order expired in 2021.

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

In accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies.⁴ The Committee notes that the author did not file a new asylum application following the expiration of the deportation order against him in 2021. The Committee takes note of the information received from the State Party that the submission of such an application would give the author an opportunity to put forward his arguments concerning his deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and that he would not be deported during the proceedings. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies and that the communication is therefore inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

4. For example, K.Q. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/144/D/4296/2023), para. 6.3. ↩

In the light of its findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine other grounds of inadmissibility.

The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol;