CAT/C/32/D/229/2003
Page 6
5.1
On 29 June 2003, the complainant, in his comments on the State party’s
observations, submits that he did not appeal the judgment of the District Court,
because the State prosecutor had warned him that, in such case, he would appeal the
verdict acquitting the complainant’s wife, who initially had also been charged with
drug offenses, and that there was a high risk of her not being acquitted on appeal.
Since the complainant did not want to risk the future of his wife and children, he felt
compelled to waive his right to lodge an appeal, which in any event was not likely to
succeed.
5.2
The complainant reiterates his arguments about the personal risks that he
would run, and the general human rights situation in Iran. He argues that the State
party would not be able to guarantee his safety if he were to be returned to that
country.
Additional submission by State party and complainant’s futher comments:
6.1
On 23 September 2003, the State party rejects as unsubstantiated the
complainant’s allegation regarding the circumstances under which he waived his right
to appeal the judgment of the District Court of Norrköping, and reiterates that the
communication is inadmissible, under article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention,
for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and, in any event, under article 22,
paragraph 2, of the Convention, as being manifestly unfounded.
6.2
The State party submits a translation of a statement by the state prosecutor in
the complainant’s case, to the effect that he never discussed his intention in relation to
a possible appeal against the judgment of the District Court with the complainant,
given that: (a) the complainant did not speak Swedish; (b) he never contacts defence
counsel to reveal his intentions with regard to a possible appeal; (c) although he
cannot rule out that counsel for the complainant contacted him to find out whether he
would consider appealing independently, he does not remember any such contact; (d)
he was content with the judgment and expulsion order against the complainant and,
upon reflection, decided not to appeal the acquittal of the complainant’s wife: and (e)
it would have been impossible for him to appeal the acquittal of the complainant’s