- guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 June 2001 01.51 BST
The parliament's committee on citizens' rights and freedoms, justice and home affairs threw its weight behind a growing international campaign by suggesting that Stockholm should re-examine the asylum application of Ritt Goldstein, who fled to Sweden in July 1997 after suffering what he claims was police brutality in the US.
In an opinion drafted by the British MEP Baroness Sarah Ludford, the committee called on the Swedish government to look again at whether its immigration authority had acted according to "the safeguards of the EU and United Nations High Commission on Refugees and its own national law, and to ensure that the application for asylum of Richard Goldstein is re-examined in accordance with these safeguards".
Mr Goldstein, 48, was a justice of the peace and successful businessman when, in 1995, he became involved in a campaign to reform the US police force by making its members more accountable.
Mr Goldstein claimed he immediately became the target of vicious reprisals which the US authorities and justice system were powerless either to prevent or redress. His home and office were ransacked, the tyres and steering mechanism on his car were tampered with and he was repeatedly sprayed with pepper spray. He was attacked so often, he said, that "it was no longer a question of whether I would be beaten up, but how often and how badly".
Mr Goldstein, who has been living in hiding in Sweden for nearly four years, said yesterday. "All I want is the chance to live normally. The committee has raised a shout that it will be difficult for the Swedish government to ignore."
The case, the only one of its kind in the world to involve a US citizen, has caused uproar in Sweden, raising doubts about existing concepts of political asylum and pitting human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch against a government that has so farrebutted all criticism of the immigration authorities' ruling.
MEPs from Britain and other countries have spoken out in support of Mr Goldstein, pointing out that his case raises serious questions about the EU's proposed common asylum policy and that definitions of terms such as "safe third countries" must be redefined.
In its rejection of his asylum application and appeal, the Swedish immigration board said Mr Goldstein's case was "manifestly unfounded" because the US is "an internationally recognised democracy" with "a functioning legal system" that did not allow the persecution of its citizens. Spokesmen from five Swedish political parties have also criticised their government's approach.
"Under the Geneva Convention, every person has the right to an individual review of their asylum application," said Marianne Andersson of the Liberal Centre party.
