The Migration Agency in Sweden and the Swedish Government are deporting young Afghans
back to a country that is clearly seen by everyone else in the world as being in a state of war and the deportation (Refoulement) of such individuals, especially when they are Hazara, is a proven threat to their life and wellbeing. The ‘justification’ for this is that the Migration ‘courts’ have decided against the young asylum seeker.
It is first necessary to define ‘what is a court’. In normal Western juris prudence a court is a place where both sides of a legal argument may be presented. The legal argument is required to be based on proveable evidence and a full record of what happens in a court is made in order that a further evidence based appeal at a higher court may be made to refute baseless and evidence-less accusations made in the first court. Both the prosecution and the defence are required, under Swedish Law, to notify each other prior to the court of the primary sources of evidence they intend to produce in the court upon which their case argument is based.
It is,therefore, clear that when such a gathering ‘masquerades as a court’ but lacks the criteria listed in the previous paragraph, it is not by any western standard of justice to be reasonably considered as a court.
Where the duty of the officers of the court is to weigh evidence, and this has not been done, it can be interpreted that such officers have been CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in their duties.
Where such negligence results in the death of an individual a clear definition exists within most western democracies of the crime of
CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER.
The fact that such a crime is committed by a government department and is condoned by any government does not lessen the crime.
The whole key to this argument is the issue of ‘evidence based’ data in each case. No government can,therefore, reasonably claim that a ‘court’ has decided against an individuals rights under International, EU and even Swedish laws.....where such rights have been denied due to non-existing evidence.If Sweden was so ‘right’ in it’s actions, why is it afraid to keep a full verbatim record of what occurs in,what are in a lot of non-security issue cases, secret courts?
The absence of a full transcript is the denial of the right of appeal.
No mechanism exists within Swedish Law to challenge the decision of such a Migration Court SINCE NO TRANSCRIPT EXISTS OF THAT COURT.
Is this 'negligence' or 'intentional' ?
Such International Conventions - and even the Swedish Aliens Act - declare that in areas of dispute ‘the benefit of the doubt’ must be given to the under age asylum seeker.
Failure to do this,whether intentional or simply by incompetence, is also at a minimum a criminally negligent action.
No amount of ‘politicised double talk’ changes the fact that Sweden is currently a nation that could be reasonably classified by any objective observer as a country committing gross human rights abuses, gross abuses of International,EU and even Swedish law...and that such abuses can and possibly already have resulted in the deaths of persons for whom the duty of care was placed upon the Swedish nation as that nation was the first place that the under-age aslym seeker made application for asylum.
When you add to this the facts that 2 Swedish Prime Ministers, in 2014 and 2015, INVITED such young asylum seekers here...one then has to question whether the resulting potential deaths and/or serious injuries could be considered as 'negligent' or whether some more sinister legal intepretation could be applied. For it is clear to most impartial international observers, that the surge of asylum seekers in 2015 was...a definite financial/economic benefit to Sweden.