COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE FINDS SIX COMPLAINTS AGAINST SPAIN, CANADA, SWEDEN, NETHERLANDS AND FRANCE INADMISSIBLE

Press Release
HR/4292

COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE FINDS SIX COMPLAINTS AGAINST SPAIN, CANADA, SWEDEN, NETHERLANDS AND FRANCE INADMISSIBLE

GENEVA, 28 February (UN Information Service) -- The Committee against Torture has ruled that six complaints of torture it had received against Spain, Canada, Sweden, Netherlands and France did not meet established criteria for its consideration. The Committee adopted those final decisions at its fifteenth session, which took place from 13 to 24 November 1995.

In the communications concerning Sweden, France and Canada, the Committee found that the authors had not exhausted all available domestic remedies, a condition for the examination of complaints. In a second complaint against Canada, the fact that the same matter was being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement precluded the Committee from considering the communication. As to the complaints against Spain and the Netherlands, the Committee found that they related to political asylum rather than establishing violation of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Under the Convention, the Committee's 10 experts may examine, in closed session, communications from, or on behalf of, individuals alleging that their rights protected by the Convention have been violated by a State party. Only communications concerning States parties having recognized the competence of the Committee in that respect may be considered.

The Committee is scheduled to hold its next session from 29 April to 10 May at Geneva.

Decisions on Inadmissibility

The author of the communication concerning Spain, submitted by the Spanish Refugee Aid Commission on behalf of an Algerian citizen, alleged that the Spanish authorities had violated the Convention against Torture by sending the person back to Algeria even though he was a member of the Front islamique du salut (FIS). It was said that the Spanish authorities did not take into account the existence in Algeria of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The State party rejected the allegations as incorrect. It claimed that the person had illegally entered Spanish territory in November 1993 and had not at the time stated that his intention was to seek

- 2 - Press Release HR/4292 6 March 1996

asylum, but that he wished to work in Germany. Moreover, he had made absolutely no claims during the expulsion hearings, inexplicable behaviour in an individual fearing persecution or torture in his own country.

The Committee concluded that the communication on behalf of the person had not been sufficiently justified as regards the claimed violation of the Convention, but was rather a matter of political asylum, making the communication incompatible with the Convention and, therefore, inadmissible.

In the communication against Canada, the author, a Zairian citizen who had arrived in Canada from France, was sent back to France. She claimed to be a victim of a violation of the Convention. As her attorney had submitted a motion relating to her expulsion to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Committee found the communication was inadmissible.

According to the communication against Sweden, the author was a Zairian citizen who had entered Sweden in November 1991 to request asylum. She claimed that her return to Zaire following the dismissal of her application for refugee status would violate article 3 of the Convention. In January 1994, the Swedish Board of Immigration refused her application for asylum, noting that the political situation in Zaire had improved. The author then submitted a "new application" to the Appeal Board, arguing that the situation in Zaire had not improved. The Committee considered that the Swedish domestic authorities should have an opportunity to evaluate the new evidence submitted by the author, before the Committee examined the communication. It, therefore, decided that the communication was inadmissible.

According to the communication against France, the author, a Zairian citizen currently residing in France, claimed that her return to Zaire following the dismissal of her application for refugee status would violate article 3 of the Convention. The dismissal of a new application containing a request to be recognized as a refugee in France was at present subject of an appeal in cassation before the State Council, which had not yet rendered its judgement. An expulsion order issued against the author was also at present on appeal. Thus, the Committee decided that the communication, as submitted, was inadmissible as the author had not exhausted all available domestic remedies.

In the communication against the Netherlands, the authors, Georgian citizens currently residing in the Netherlands, claimed that they feared for their life if they were to return to Georgia. The Committee noted that the facts, as submitted by the authors, related to a claim of asylum. However, no evidence had been adduced that they could be personally at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Georgia. It considered that no substantiation of a claim under article 3 of the Convention had been presented and that the communication was, therefore, inadmissible.

- 3 - Press Release HR/4292 6 March 1996

As to the communication against Canada, the author, a national of Ghana, arrived in Canada in March 1992 and applied for asylum following his escape from prison, where he had spent almost four years having been accused of participating in an attempt to assassinate the Ghanaian Head of State. He claimed that his return to Ghana following the rejection of his application for refugee status would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture. The Committee noted that the Canadian authorities should have the opportunity to examine the new evidence submitted by the author before it could consider the communication. It decided, therefore, that the communication, as submitted, was inadmissible because all available domestic remedies had not been exhausted.

Background on Convention

The General Assembly unanimously adopted the Convention in 1984; it entered into force on 26 June 1987. States parties to the Convention are required to outlaw torture and are explicitly prohibited from using "higher orders" or "exceptional circumstances" as excuses for acts of torture. The Convention also introduced two significant new elements to the United Nations fight against torture. First, it specifies that alleged torturers may be tried in any State party, or they may be extradited to face trial in the State party where their crimes were committed. Second, the Convention provides for international investigation of reliable reports of torture, including visits to the State party concerned, with its agreement. The Convention also provided for the establishment of the Committee against Torture to monitor its implementation.

Under article 22 of the Convention, a State party may at any time declare that it recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from, or on behalf of, individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of a violation by a State party of the provisions of the Convention.

So far, of the 91 States parties to the Convention, 36 have made this declaration. They are: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay, Venezuela and Yugoslavia.

* *** *