CAT/C/62/D/722/2015
party informed the Committee that it had decided “after careful consideration, not to accept
the Committee’s invitation to implement interim measures in the present case”.2
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant submits that he was born and raised in Bukavu, South Kivu
province, Democratic Republic of the Congo. In January 2010, he was abducted, along with
other people, by Interahamwe militia members, also known as the Democratic Forces for
the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), and taken to the forest to serve as carriers for the militia
members. Sometime after he was abducted, the army raided the camp where the
complainant was held. He was detained and imprisoned by security officials in a prison in
Bukavu, accused of being a top informant for FDLR.
2.2
The complainant claims that he was tortured while in detention. He submits that he
managed to escape from the prison and get to Rwanda, from where he fled to Norway with
the help of a smuggler. He arrived in Norway in July 2011 and applied for asylum. On 16
September 2011, he was notified that his asylum request had been rejected by the
Norwegian Directorate of Immigration. The complainant appealed that decision before the
Immigration Appeals Board. On 22 August 2013, he was informed that his appeal had been
rejected. The complainant then hired a private lawyer, who filed a second appeal to the
Immigration Appeals Board, which indicated that the complainant had no right to file a
second appeal and on about 7 October 2013, informed his lawyer that he should leave
Norway immediately. The complainant alleges that those decisions recognized that he
could suffer an irreparable harm, including torture if he returned to Bukavu, but considered
that he could resettle in Kinshasa, as it was a big city where he could hide from the
government officials who had tortured him before. The complainant indicates that he stayed
in Norway after the decision on his second appeal.
2.3
On 24 June 2014, the complainant was arrested at the asylum centre at 4 a.m. He
indicates that police officers took him to Oslo where he was kept in a cell, alone, for about
six days. He was subsequently brought before a court. He was not informed why he was
there. The court decided that his case should be reviewed by the Immigration Appeals
Board once again. He was released and went back to the asylum centre. On 30 November
2015, the Board issued its decision rejecting the asylum application and asked the
complainant to leave the country by 28 December 2015, stating that otherwise he would be
forcibly deported. According to the complainant, that decision upheld the preceding
decisions taken in his case, as it was considered that although he could be at risk in Bukavu,
he could resettle in Kinshasa.
2.4
The complainant claims that he has exhausted all domestic remedies, as the decision
of the Board is final.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant states that he fears that if returned to the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, he will be tortured or killed by the authorities owing to the allegations that he
was a top informant for FDLR.
3.2
The complainant claims that the Directorate of Immigration and the Immigration
Appeals Board did not take into account that the officials who tortured him belonged to the
Government which is currently in power. Therefore, the argument that he could resettle in
Kinshasa is not valid, as the Government is present in the whole territory of the country. He
could therefore be arrested anywhere in the country and probably be tortured or killed. In
addition, his wife, who is still in Bukavu, has informed him that government officials are
still looking for him.3 The complainant quotes a report of 2012 by the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in which UNHCR states that it is not
recommended that persons from North Kivu and South Kivu are returned there, but to other
2
3
2
On that date and on several other occasions, the State party asked the Committee to lift interim
measures, but these requests were not granted.
The complainant does not provide further details on this matter.