he would be facing upon return to Tunisia, and because he wished to live in Saudi
Arabia, he withdrew his application and returned to Saudi Arabia.
2.7
On 27 July 1997 the complainant’s passport expired. He applied for an
extension at the Tunisian Embassy in Riyadh but was refused on 9 November1997 for
“administrative reasons”. The complainant believes that his passport was not
extended because he is wanted by the Tunisian authorities. He then tried, with the
help of friends, to obtain a Saudi Arabian passport but failed. The complainant knew
that if he stayed in Saudi Arabia without a valid passport he would be forcibly
returned to Tunisia where he would be arrested, imprisoned, and most probably
subjected to torture. He persuaded a contact in Saudi Arabia to make false stamps to
extend his passport. With the help of friends he obtained a business visa with which
he entered Sweden on 26 March 1998.
2.8
Since his arrival in Sweden the complainant has been involved in activities in
the mosque and gives lectures on Islam. He is convinced that the Tunisian authorities
are aware of these activities. His wife returned to Tunisia from Saudi Arabia. She
was subjected to different kinds of harassment and was finally “forced” to divorce the
complainant. On 14 May 1999, the complainant married a Swedish citizen of
Tunisian origin. The couple have since divorced but have a daughter together.
2.9
On 1 March 1999, the complainant’s application for asylum and a residence
permit was turned down by the Swedish Immigration Board. He appealed the
decision to the Aliens Appeals Board. On 28 September 2000, his appeal was
refused.
2.10 In February 2001, the complainant then made a second application for asylum
and a residence permit to the Aliens Appeals Board. His second application was also
refused although he submitted the false stamps he had bought in Saudi Arabia to
extend his passport, a second letter from the Chairman of the Al-Nadha certifying his
personal knowledge of the complainant and referring to the likelihood of his being
subjected to torture if deported to Tunisia, and a letter from UNHCR stating the
following, “UNHCR has no reasons to doubt the genuineness of the above attestation
[certificate from the Chairman of Al-Nadha]. In light of this, and considering that
members of the Al-Nadha Party still risk persecution in Tunisia, we would advise
against the return of the applicant to Tunisia.”
2.11 On 6 March, the complainant submitted a third application for consideration
by the Aliens Appeals Board. The complainant included a letter from Amnesty
International, Sweden and the United States Department of State country report
describing the general human rights situation in Tunisia. The letter from Amnesty
also states that in the opinion of the organization the complainant would be at risk of
torture if retuned to Tunisia because of his involvement with Al-Nadha. On 19 March
2001, the Aliens Board rejected his application, stating that the complainant had
referred to the same information as in his previous applications.
2.12 The complainant says that the general human rights situation in Tunisia is very
bad. Thousands of persons are imprisoned for their religious and/or political beliefs.
He refers to different reports by Amnesty International according to which there is a
high risk of persecution for members and sympathizers of Al-Nadha.
4