According to the Court's press release:

"The case concerns the deportation of a failed-asylum seeker from Sweden to Iraq. The applicant, A.A.M., is an Iraqi national who was born in 1977 and is originally from Mosul (Iraq). He alleges that in August 2008 he fled Mosul where he owned a shop when an Iraqi branch of al-Qaeda threatened him for refusing to dismiss a young woman in his employment who did not wear a veil. He claims that shortly afterwards his shop was destroyed by a bomb. He then entered Sweden and claimed asylum in November 2008. He submitted in particular to the Swedish authorities that he was wrongly convicted in Iraq in his absence and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for aiding terrorists. In support of his claim, he provided copies of the arrest warrant against him and the judgment convicting him. He also claimed that he was at risk of persecution by al-Qaeda for having voiced unacceptable religious opinions. His request was examined by the Migration Board and Migration Court and ultimately rejected in 2011 on the ground that the authenticity of the arrest warrant and judgment were questionable. They further found that, although the applicant was at risk of persecution by al-Qaeda in Mosul where there was a strong al-Qaeda presence, he could relocate to another part of Iraq. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), A.A.M. alleges that, if returned to Iraq, he would be at real risk of persecution and possibly death."

The court analysed the possibility for the applicant to relocate to the Kurdistan Region. It noted that, according to international sources, the three northern governorates – Dahuk, Erbil and Sulaymaniyah – which form the Kurdistan Region of Iraq, are relatively safe and not among those with a notable al-Qaeda presence. Regarding the possibility of entering the region, the court looked at various sources which concluded that Arabs would normally undergo greater scrutiny than Christians, but the procedure appeared to be unproblematic and focused on proper identification papers. The court also added that the applicant would be able to arrive directly in the Kurdistan region as there are regular flights from Sweden to Erbil and Sulaymaniyah without stopovers in other parts of Iraq. The court further added that evidence shows that there are jobs available, there is health care and financial and other support from the UNHCR and local authorities. General living conditions for an Arab Sunni Muslim settler do not appear to be unreasonable or contrary to Article 3.

Thus, the Court considered that relocation to the Kurdistan Region was a viable alternative for the applicant and a Contracting State relying on this alternative would not breach Article 3 of the Convention.