June 11, 2026: Russian human rights defenders condemn Sweden's measures against refugees.

The Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights condemns the Swedish government's actions to revoke refugees' residence permits and create legal uncertainty for a wide range of vulnerable individuals. The government's actions affect all refugees, regardless of the number of years they have lived in Sweden. Those deprived of their residence permits risk their lives, the lives of their families, and the property they acquired in the country, the Association emphasized. Many have homes, jobs, and businesses and have been associated with the country for 20-30 years, the Association noted, yet one day they become targets for deportation.
Human rights activists from the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights believe the involvement of the UN Human Rights Committees and the UNHCR is necessary in light of the evolving practice in the EU and consider the Swedish precedent grounds for convening a special UN meeting, as it violates and undermines the foundations of human rights. Individuals deprived of their residence permits must obtain documents guaranteeing them safe residence in their chosen country or another location in the world they deem safe, the Association clarified, and the primary guarantor and organization that could provide such documents is the UN. The Association emphasized that the UN has sufficient authority to do this, and this is precisely the case that requires the organization's close attention, immediate practical response, and the implementation of the rights guaranteed by the Declaration.
Commentary by Maria Arkhipova, Chairperson of the Association of Russian Lawyers for Human Rights:
- If Sweden implements an initiative to cancel or revoke permanent residence permits previously granted to refugees and persons in need of international protection, such a measure raises serious questions from the perspective of international law and human rights standards. This refers to proposals to replace permanent status with temporary residence permits for a significant portion of persons granted protection on the basis of asylum. Yes, according to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, states have the right to regulate migration policy and the procedure for granting residence status. However, any changes must comply with the principles of legal certainty, non-discrimination, and the protection of legally acquired rights. A wholesale review of already issued indefinite residence permits could run counter to the principle of legitimate expectations, which is recognized in both European and international law.
The retroactive nature of such measures is particularly concerning. People who have built their lives in Sweden over many years, worked, started families, and integrated into society, expected stability in their legal status. Retroactively revoking their permanent status could create a state of chronic legal uncertainty, affecting the right to respect for private and family life, guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights itself.
Furthermore, international law requires an individual assessment of each case. It is unacceptable to automatically revoke people's legal status without taking into account their personal circumstances, degree of integration, family ties, length of residence, and potential risks if they return to their country of origin. Even if a state seeks to tighten migration policy, such measures must be proportionate and not lead to a de facto undermining of international protection.
Of particular importance is the principle of non-refoulement of individuals to a place where they may face persecution, torture, or inhumane treatment. This principle is the cornerstone of international refugee law and is binding on Sweden, regardless of changes in national legislation.
From a human rights perspective, such initiatives create a dangerous precedent: international protection ceases to be perceived as a reliable guarantee of security and becomes a conditional and constantly renegotiated status. This undermines trust in the international asylum system as a whole and calls into question the fulfillment of states' humanitarian obligations.
Therefore, any reforms in this area must be strictly assessed for compliance with the 1951 Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the principle of legal certainty, which underpins a democratic state governed by the rule of law. https://rusadvocat.com/