UN human rights office rebukes Sweden for deporting disabled child twice to Albania

UN Human Rights Office Condemns Sweden’s Deportation of Disabled Child to Albania

Child’s Medical Needs Overlooked in Two Expulsions

UN human rights office rebukes Sweden – On Monday, the UN Human Rights Committee issued a formal rebuke against Sweden, accusing the country of violating a child’s right to life through two deportations to Albania. The case centers on E. B., an Albanian national now 21 years old, who suffers from multiple severe health conditions. These include autism, a profound mental developmental disorder, spastic diplegic cerebral palsy, hydrocephalus, and epilepsy. His family initially sought asylum in Sweden in 2012, driven by the need for medical treatment and protection from the conditions in their home country.

The committee’s decision, announced on 30 March, highlights the inadequate assessment conducted by Swedish authorities before sending E. B. back to Albania. The first deportation occurred in 2016, when the child was 10 years old. Despite years of unsuccessful asylum applications and appeals, the family was eventually expelled. However, they swiftly returned to Sweden without legal status, hoping to secure residency permits for E. B. to ensure his continued care. This attempt, too, failed, leading to a second deportation in 2019 when the child was 14.

According to the committee’s findings, Sweden’s actions exposed E. B. to a “real risk of irreparable harm” in Albania. The decision underscores that states must conduct thorough, individualized evaluations before removing individuals with complex medical needs. “It is imperative that countries verify access to essential treatment and medication in the destination country,” emphasized Wafaa Bassim, the committee’s vice chair, in a statement. “Otherwise, the removal of such a child constitutes a violation of their right to life and freedom from cruel treatment.”

“The committee found that, by failing to confirm E. B.’s ability to receive necessary medical care in Albania, Swedish officials breached his fundamental rights.”

The case was brought before the committee by E. B. himself, who described the repeated expulsions as a cycle of instability. After returning to Sweden once more, he faced a new removal order, prompting the organization to intervene. The committee’s ruling urges Sweden to reassess E. B.’s asylum applications and to provide him with adequate compensation for the harm caused by the deportations. This includes ensuring access to essential therapies and medications that were previously available in Sweden.

The committee, composed of 18 independent experts, is tasked with overseeing the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by its member states. Its role involves conducting periodic reviews of countries’ compliance with human rights standards. While the committee lacks the authority to enforce its decisions directly, its rulings often carry significant influence over national policies and international perceptions.

Sweden’s policy of expelling individuals with failed asylum applications has been criticized in recent years for its impact on vulnerable groups. E. B.’s case illustrates the challenges faced by those with severe disabilities, particularly when their health conditions are not fully accounted for in deportation procedures. His family’s repeated attempts to stay in Sweden—each time denied—highlight the bureaucratic hurdles and lack of support for individuals requiring specialized care.

The committee’s decision also sets a precedent for how countries should handle cases involving children with life-threatening health issues. It stresses that removals should not occur without evidence that the destination country can adequately address the individual’s needs. “Sweden’s failure to ensure E. B.’s medical needs were met in Albania demonstrates a systemic oversight,” said Bassim. “This undermines the principle of protecting those most at risk.”

E. B.’s medical conditions have been a central factor in his family’s struggle for residency. The child requires ongoing treatment for his cerebral palsy and epilepsy, which includes regular physiotherapy, medication, and monitoring for hydrocephalus. In Sweden, these services were available, but in Albania, the family faced uncertainty. The committee’s ruling suggests that such uncertainties must be resolved before any deportation is carried out, especially for children with severe disabilities.

The decision has prompted calls for Sweden to revise its asylum and deportation protocols. Advocacy groups have pointed to E. B.’s case as a reminder of the importance of considering medical and social factors in immigration decisions. “This is not just about a single child,” noted one human rights observer. “It reflects a broader issue of how states prioritize legal procedures over the well-being of individuals in need.”

The committee’s findings also raise questions about the balance between immigration control and humanitarian obligations. While Sweden has long been a key player in European asylum policies, the case has brought attention to the potential consequences of rigid deportation frameworks. The ruling underscores the necessity of conducting risk assessments that account for the specific vulnerabilities of children and individuals with disabilities.

For E. B., the repeated expulsions have meant a life of displacement. His family has endured multiple cycles of returning to Sweden, only to be sent back again. This pattern has disrupted his access to consistent medical care and created emotional and financial strain. The committee’s decision now places the responsibility on Sweden to provide a more equitable resolution, ensuring that E. B. is not subjected to further harm.

As the case moves forward, it will serve as a test for Sweden’s commitment to human rights. The country is expected to review E. B.’s applications and implement measures to prevent similar situations in the future. The committee’s statement, however, remains a clear warning: the failure to safeguard a child’s health and life can have lasting consequences, regardless of legal procedures.

Sweden’s experience with E. B. also highlights the importance of international oversight in migration policies. While the committee cannot force the country to change its approach, its findings will likely shape public discourse and policy debates. For families like E. B.’s, the decision represents a small but significant victory in the fight for their child’s rights and well-being.