CAT/C/32/D/229/2003
Page 5
whether there are impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order, such as the
existence of reasonable grounds for believing he/she would be in danger of being
subjected to capital punishment, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment upon return to his/her country of origin. The decision of the court of first
instance is subject to appeal (and further appeal to the Supreme Court, if leave to
appeal has been granted). Pursuant to Chapter 7, Section 16 of the Aliens Act, the
Government may revoke, partly or entirely, a judgment or order for expulsion on
account of a criminal offence and grant a temporary residence or work permit, based
on circumstances that did not exist at the time of the expulsion order.
4.3
The State party submits that the complainant did not exhaust domestic
remedies because he did not appeal the judgment of the District Court of 17 March
2000. Rather, he declared his satisfaction with the judgment, regarding both his prison
term and the expulsion order, one day prior to the deadline for lodging an appeal; he
thus expressly waived his right to appeal.
4.4
By reference to a decision of the European Commission of Human Rights in a
similar case2, the State party argues that an appeal to the Court of Appeal, (as well as
a potential further appeal to the Supreme Court), would have been an effective and
reasonably expeditious remedy, which cannot be replaced by the extraordinary
remedy under Chapter 7, Section 16 of the Aliens Act. The complainant did not show
that his alleged risk of being tortured and sentenced to death upon return to Iran could
not have been raised in the criminal appellate, rather than extraordinary, proceedings.
4.5
The State party argues that, in any event, the complainant failed to substantiate
his alleged risk of torture upon return to Iran, for purposes of admissibility. It
concludes that the communication is manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible
under article 22 of the Convention, as well as rule 107 (b), of the Committee’s revised
Rules of Procedure.3
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submissions:
2
European Commission of Human Rights, Decision on the admissibility of Application No. 36800/97
(Heidari v. Sweden).
3
The State party refers to Communication No. 216/2002, Decision on admissibility adopted on 2 May
2003, at para. 6.2.