The applicant, a national of Myanmar, referred to as K.C. , entered Sweden on a student visa from Türkiye on 18 February 2021 and applied for asylum on 9 March 2021. She claimed she feared persecution due to her and her family’s political activities, her posts against the military junta on social media, and her Indian descent and Muslim faith. The Swedish Migration Agency rejected her claim on 30 July 2021, on the grounds that the applicant had not resided in Myanmar since 2018, had not participated in demonstrations against the military junta, and that her social media posts expressed opinions shared by many in Myanmar. It found no evidence that the authorities were aware of her political opinions. The Migration Agency acknowledged that persons of Indian ethnicity and Muslim faith may face discrimination in Myanmar but concluded that the applicant did not substantiate that she had experienced discrimination based on ethnicity or religion.

On 23 September 2021, the applicant appealed this decision to the Migration Court, adding that her father and brother had left their home in Yangon in order to avoid arrest. The Migration Court dismissed her appeal on 30 November 2021. The decision was also upheld by the Migration Court of Appeal on 25 January 2022. On 8 February 2022, the applicant filed a communication with the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Committee issued interim measures requesting Sweden to halt deportation during the examination of the case.

In the communication, the applicant argued that if she was removed to Myanmar, the authorities would find out about her asylum application in Sweden, for which she would likely be arrested. She cited cases of people who faced long prison sentences, torture or even death after being deported to Myanmar. She also claimed that authorities might detain her to force her relatives to surrender. Finally, she added that she was diabetic and feared being denied access to medical care in Myanmar.

The Committee affirmed that although the applicant had not cited specific provisions of the ICCPR, her allegations raised issues under Articles 6 and 7. The Committee reiterated that in order to be substantiated, the risk under Articles 6–7 of the ICCPR must be personal, real and foreseeable. The Committee stressed that the applicant had failed to substantiate that her father and brother, or the applicant herself, had specifically come to the attention of the authorities in Myanmar on the basis of their political involvement in demonstrations and social media posts. Thus, she had not substantiated that her political opinions were known to the Myanmar authorities. The Committee also pointed to the conclusions of Swedish migration authorities, according to which nothing had emerged to indicate that the applicant had suffered specific instances of discrimination due to her faith or ethnicity, or that she had been denied medical care. It found that she had not demonstrated that the migration authorities failed to assess her claims or consider the risk factors she raised. The Committee also held that it had not been established that the conclusions of domestic authorities were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 

In conclusion, the Human Rights Committee declared the communication inadmissible under Article 2 of the Optional Protocol, finding that the applicant had not substantiated that her removal to Myanmar would expose her to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of violations of Articles 6 or 7 of the ICCPR.