CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 avril 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 April 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 38099/25 S.H. against Sweden lodged on 3 December 2025 communicated on 8 April 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant, an Afghan national, requested asylum in Sweden. In several sets of proceedings, during the years from 2015 to 2024, the Swedish authorities refused his requests and ordered his deportation. The applicant complains that, if he were to be deported, he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention mainly owing to a family feud, his membership of the Sayyed ethnic group, his never having lived in Afghanistan, his intellectual and physical disabilities, his apostasy from Islam and atheist beliefs, his political views, and his so-called “westernisation”. He also submits that the Swedish State failed to fulfil its procedural obligations under Articles   2 and 3 of the Convention. Moreover, invoking Article 14 of the Convention, he complains that his disabilities were not properly accommodated in the asylum proceedings, resulting in discriminatory treatment in comparison with asylum seekers without disabilities. His request for an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was granted by the Court on 16 January 2026.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s claims, the documents which have been submitted and relevant country information, would he face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 2 and/or 3 of the Convention if he were deported to Afghanistan? In particular, would he face such a risk on account of his ethnic origin, his disabilities, his religious and political beliefs, and his so-called “westernisation”, alone or in combination with any further circumstances, taking into consideration, inter alia , country information regarding the situation in Afghanistan for individuals of Hazara ethnicity and other Shias; individuals considered to have committed apostasy; individuals perceived to have transgressed religious, moral and/or societal norms; and individuals perceived as influenced by foreign values (see, for example, UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Guidance Note on the International Protection Needs of People Fleeing Afghanistan (Update II) , September 2025, and European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), Country Guidance: Afghanistan 2024, May 2024, Common analysis, sections 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, and 3.14.2)?   2.     Did the domestic authorities fulfil their procedural obligation to conduct an adequate examination of whether the applicant would face a real risk of death or ill-treatment if he were deported to Afghanistan, as required by Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, in particular in view of his claim that his disabilities were not adequately taken into account during the domestic proceedings and in the domestic authorities’ decisions?