Human rights in Sweden

(Updated in September 2009)

It is easy to assert that Sweden does not have problems with serious offences against human rights as compared to other countries, but this is of little comfort to the individual whose rights are being violated. One of Civil Rights Defenders’ main tasks is to survey and report on the state of the human rights situation in our own country. We organise seminars, publish reports and make statements with a view to influencing decision makers and making the public aware of facts that jeopardise their rights.

During the last few years a number of new laws have been passed as a direct result of the international battle against terrorism. The Security Service and the Police have been given increased authority to use covert surveillance methods, international and regional sanction lists have been drawn up and suspected terrorists’ assets have been freezed without the decision of a court.

The rhetoric on terrorism is coming into use in criminal as well as in migration law. Bilateral and international collaborations between security services have multiplied resulting in increased exchange of information.

The increased legislation that aims at fighting ”terrorism” has not been balanced with increased protection against possible violations of human rights, such as the absolute ban on torture.

Torture in Swedish criminal law is still not considered an explicit crime and there is no explicit prohibition against using evidence that has emerged as a result of torture. The non-refoulement principle is not being honoured in a desirable way in Sweden, in spite of the fact that returning a person to a country where he or she risks being tortured or subjected to other illegitimate treatment is prohibited and forms part of Swedish asylum and migration law.

The right of having one’s case effectively tried in court when there is a risk of torture demands procedures that give the individual opportunity to argue against refusal of entry. Sweden introduced the new methods in the Aliens Act 2006 without sufficiently solving the problems relating to classified information as regards security issues.

In today’s society, intelligence information seems to change hands more than ever before, and democratic states, too, seriously violate the ban on torture when interrogating suspect terrorists. This results in that courts and authorities deciding on security issues must be very careful when making decisions on individuals’ rights to stay in the country, and not blindly trust the information they receive from the Security Service.

Secret surveillance on the increase
During the last few years we have witnessed several new laws being passed that give the Police opportunity to use covert surveillance as a method to prevent serious crimes. The laws authorise the Police and the Security Service to use new surveillance methods and increase the areas in which existing coercive measures may be applied.

With all covert surveillance, the principles of purpose, necessity and proportionality must be applied, which means that the use of coercive measures must be related to its purpose and that coercive measures only can be used when there is a marked need and the measure is proportional to the resulting violation of integrity.

The government proposes that a new Security and Integrity Protection Board be established to look into how covert coercive measures are being used.

A notification obligation is introduced implying that individuals who have been exposed to covert coercive measures must be informed about it. The notification obligation does not, however, apply to investigations where the Security Service is involved or to investigations that contain classified information.

The notification obligation does not either apply to individuals who may be indirectly intercepted, e.g., individuals who have received telephone calls from a suspect.

The Parliament has decided to implement two bills regarding covert interception of telecommunications and late in 2007 the Police and Security Service were granted authority to use covert interception (bugging) of premises and use methods, such as interception of telecommunications, as preventive measures, i.e., before the crime has been committed.

Civil Rights Defenders are concerned that de development of new interceptive technology will be considerably quicker than the development of the individual’s legal protection.