|
The Committee
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 14 November 2000,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 144/1999, submitted
to the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the author
of the communication and the State party,
Adopts its Views under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.
1.1 The author of the communication is Mr. A.M., born in 1974 and a citizen
of Chad. He is currently residing in Switzerland, where he applied for
asylum on 19 October 1998. His application having been turned down, he
maintains that his forcible repatriation to Chad would constitute a
violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.
1.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the
Committee brought the communication to the attention of the State party on 4
October 1999. At the same time, the Committee, pursuant to rule 108,
paragraph 9, of its rules of procedure, requested the State party not to
expel the author to Chad while his communication was under consideration. In
a submission dated 26 November 1999, the State party informed the Committee
that measures had been taken to ensure that the author was not returned to
Chad while his case was pending before the Committee.
The Facts as Submitted by the Author
2.1 The author has been trained in computing. He was an active member of the
Chadian Human Rights League (LTDH), vice-president of one of the components
of the Alliance Nationale de R�sistance (ANR) and acting vice-president of
the Union des Jeunes R�volutionnaires (UJR) for an 18-month period during
the president's absence. After this period he was denounced to the security
forces by agents who had infiltrated these bodies.
2.2 On 16 September 1998, soldiers came to the author's home during his
absence. A police officer friend advised him to leave his house. After he
had gone into hiding at his mother's home, the soldiers returned to his
house at night. This convinced him he should leave the country.
2.3 The author requested asylum in Switzerland, but his request was turned
down. Thereupon he was allegedly forced by the Swiss authorities to contact
the Chadian Embassy in France in order to organize his return home. The
embassy officials reportedly refused to assist him as they claimed they
could not ensure his safety unless he expressly renounced the opposition
movement and supported the existing regime.
Merits of the Case
3. The author states that, as he is known to the security services in Chad,
if he returned there he would run a real risk of ill-treatment. He considers
that today it has been sufficiently established, in particular by the
International Federation of Human Rights (IFHR), that human rights are
violated on a massive scale in Chad. Moreover, the Swiss Asylum Appeal
Commission has itself recognized that members of the LTDH, such as the
author, are liable to have serious difficulties with the Chadian security
services. Three LTDH activists have disappeared since being arrested by
Sudanese security forces in April 1998 and handed over to the Chadian
authorities.
The State Party's Observations on the Admissibility and Merits of the
Communication
4.1 The State party has not contested the admissibility of the communication
and, in a letter of 4 April 2000, it commented on its merits.
4.2 The State party points out that a consistent pattern of flagrant or
massive violations of human rights in a country does not in itself
constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person
would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to
that country. There must be other grounds indicating that the individual
concerned would be personally at risk.
4.3 In the present case, the State party considers that the risk alleged by
the author is insufficiently substantiated. The author's explanations of his
political activities were general and vague. At the first hearing relating
to his application for asylum, he was unable to provide the names of the
organizations he had worked for. Moreover, the information he gave on the
LTDH was erroneous and the attestation by the ANR representative which he
produced did not indicate clearly what role he played in the ANR. His
membership card shows a date of enrolment that does not correspond to the
date he mentioned to the Swiss authorities. In addition, the State party
possessed information to the effect that the ANR was not known as an
opposition movement in Chad.
4.4 The State party also considers that the account the author has given is
not plausible. With regard to his allegations that soldiers were looking for
him, it is unthinkable that, if they had really wanted to apprehend him,
they would not have gone to his place of work, given his statement that he
continued going to work even after the soldiers had shown up at his home, or
to his mother's home.
4.5 The State party also refers to the Committee's General Comment on
article 3, to the effect that considerable weight will be given by the
Committee to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party,
and stresses that the communication is only one page long.
4.6 The State party points out that, contrary to what the author had
claimed, the ANR has subsidiary bases in the Sudan and the Central African
Republic and its zone of operation is located in eastern Chad. This has been
confirmed by documents produced by the author himself. The State party
further maintains that the author claimed, on one occasion, that he had been
prosecuted for having incited young people to rebel, and on another, that
his prosecution was the result of the work of informants who had infiltrated
the ANR or the youth movement.
4.7 The State party considers that the author's statements regarding his
behaviour after the alleged attempts to arrest him and his escape route are
again implausible. At the hearings he claimed that he had gone to work
during the three or four days preceding his departure, which seems highly
unlikely for a person who is wanted by the police. Moreover, he took the
longest and most complicated route across the whole of Chad and Libya on his
way to Europe, whereas two of his brothers live in Cameroon and he himself
had specialized in smuggling people into Nigeria.
4.8 The State party further points out that the author has never claimed to
have been subjected to torture in the past or claimed that relatives of his
have been harassed because of his activities; he has not pursued his
political activity since his arrival in Switzerland.
4.9 The State party points out that this communication is the first occasion
when the author has referred to the Union des jeunes r�volutionnaires and to
his position as vice-president. Until this point he had only mentioned the
Chadian Revolutionary Party; the ANR "component" he referred to has not been
clearly identified. With regard to his membership of the LTDH, the Swiss
Asylum Appeal Commission clearly stated that, apart from the bogus
membership card referred to above, his membership did not sufficiently
establish that he would run the risk of being subjected to torture. With
regard to the refusal of the Chadian Embassy in France to issue the
necessary travel documents to him, the State party observes that the letter
from the embassy makes no mention of the fate awaiting him upon his return
to Chad. It merely mentions that the French authorities are unable to
provide such documents. Moreover, if the author were really wanted by the
Chadian authorities, they would most likely have encouraged him to return.
Author's Comments
5.1 In a letter of 20 May 2000, the author commented on the State party's
observations on the merits of the communication.
5.2 The author first draws the Committee's attention to the fact that the
human rights situation in Chad has continued to deteriorate since 1994. He
backs up this statement with various documents and press clippings. Having
been a member of the LTDH, the ANR and the UJR, he is convinced that, if
arrested, he would be subjected to torture.
5.3 With regard to the State party's observation that he was unable to
provide the names of the organizations he was working for at the first
hearing, he points out that it was a particularly short hearing and he was
not questioned on this point. The subsequent hearings were longer and more
detailed, allowing the author to be more specific about his activities.
5.4 As to the discrepancy between the date of joining the LTDH given on his
membership card and the date he mentioned in his statements, the author
claims that an error was made on the card and he was unable to have it
corrected. He also states he did indeed give the name of Mr. Ngare Ada as
being acting president of the LTDH.
5.5 As to the ANR, the author is surprised that the State party has not
heard that the organization is part of the opposition movement in Chad. He
has provided several press clippings showing this to be the case, in
particular articles referring to a round-table meeting organized in Gabon in
1996. In addition, the author notes that there was an error in the ANR
attestation claiming that he had sought asylum in the Netherlands, but that
he has been unable to have the document corrected.
5.6 Regarding the route he took when fleeing from Chad, the author believes
that the route through Libya was less closely watched and the safest one for
him to take. He points out that the border with Cameroon is much more
closely guarded and there was a strong chance of being recognized there.
5.7 Lastly, the author does not recall having mentioned that he had gone to
work after the soldiers had started looking for him. At that point he had
been unable to take any practical steps himself and it was his wife who had
organized his escape from the country.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee
6.1 Before considering any of the allegations in a communication, the
Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is
admissible under article 22 of the Convention. It has ascertained, as in
accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention it is
required to do, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It
also notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State
party has not contested the admissibility of the communication. It therefore
considers that the communication is admissible. As both the State party and
the author have provided observations on the merits of the communication,
the Committee proceeds with the consideration of those merits.
6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the
author to Chad would violate the obligation of the State party under article
3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where
there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of
being subjected to torture.
6.3 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, whether
there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in
danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Chad. In reaching this
decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations,
pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of
the determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned
would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to
which he or she would return. The existence of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as
such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person
would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to
the country. There must be other grounds indicating that the individual
concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a
consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a
person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific
circumstances.
6.4 The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of
article 3 which reads: "Bearing in mind that the State party and the
Committee are obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for
believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture
were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must
be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the
risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable" (A/53/44,
annex IX, para. 6).
6.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party's observations
to the effect that the author's statements concerning the alleged risks of
torture are vague and general, at times implausible, at times inaccurate and
at times inconsistent.
6.6. The Committee finds that the author has not mentioned any forms of
persecution to which he was subjected in his country of origin. He was never
ill-treated or tortured; nor was he ever questioned or detained by the
security forces.
6.7 The Committee also finds that the author has not produced conclusive
evidence of nor demonstrated convincingly his membership of or activities in
the Chadian Human Rights League, the Alliance nationale de r�sistance or the
Union des jeunes r�volutionnaires.
6.8 The Committee therefore finds that it has not been given enough evidence
by the author to conclude that the latter would run a personal, real and
foreseeable risk of being tortured if returned to his country of origin.
6.9 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, therefore concludes that the decision of the State
party to return the author to Chad does not constitute a breach of article 3
of the Convention.
|
|