Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CAT - Sweden

List of all admissibility decisions

Case Name Comm Number Date Outcome
P. M. P. K. v. Sweden 30/1995 20 November 1995 Inadmissible
L. M. V. R. G. and M. A. B. C. v. Sweden 64/1997 19 November 1997 Inadmissible
J. M. U. M. v. Sweden 58/1996 15 May 1998 Inadmissible
A. G. v. Sweden 140/1999 02 May 2000 Inadmissible
A. R. v. Sweden 170/2000 23 November 2001 Inadmissible
H. I. A. v. Sweden 216/2002 02 May 2003 Inadmissible
S. A. v. Sweden 243/2004 06 May 2004 Inadmissible
H. S. V. v. Sweden 229/2003 12 May 2004 Inadmissible
L.J.R.C. v. Sweden 218/2002 22 November 2004 Inadmissible
A.H. v. Sweden 250/2004 15 November 2005 Inadmissible
A.R.A. v. Sweden 305/2006 30 April 2007 Inadmissible
K. A. v. Sweden 308/2006 16 November 2007 Inadmissible
S. K. and R. K. v. Sweden 365/2008 21 November 2011 Inadmissible
B.M.S. v. Sweden 437/2010 12 November 2012 Inadmissible
I.A.F.B. v. Sweden 425/2010 13 November 2012 Inadmissible
U. v. Sweden 643/2014 23 November 2015 Inadmissible
H. v. Sweden 627/2014 05 August 2016 Inadmissible
R.M. v. Sweden 610/2014 30 November 2016 Inadmissible

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".