CAT/C/41/D/285/2006
page 4
State party’s observations
4.1 In its observations of 7 July 2006, the State party maintains that the complainant has
not produced evidence that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in
the event of his removal to Algeria. He has not provided the Committee with any new
evidence calling into question the decisions of the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission (CRA)
dated 20 October and 23 December 2005 and 16 January 2006.
4.2 The complainant claims that, in February-March 2002, he was arrested by hooded
civilians, who held him for one week in a location unknown to him, where he was interrogated
and ill-treated. However, his account of the circumstances of his arrest and his alleged detention
lacks credibility. For example, he is unable to describe the interrogations to which he was
subjected, and his explanations of the grounds for his arrest remain vague. Moreover, except for
his alleged arrest, he has never had any problems with the Algerian authorities.
4.3 The State party does not dispute the existence of the sequelae from which the complainant
is suffering, but considers it highly unlikely that they were caused by acts of torture. Indeed, the
medical certificate indicates various possible reasons for the complainant’s condition, the doctor
who examined him saw him only once and, apart from the medical certificate, there is no
evidence of the alleged ill-treatment. In addition, during the proceedings before the domestic
authorities, the complainant made no reference to the medical certificate.
4.4 The complainant affirmed that he had not been politically active in Algeria. By his own
account, his membership of the Fatah movement in the years 1987-1997 in the Syrian Arab
Republic and Lebanon - prior to his stay in Algeria, therefore - constituted his only political
activity. The State party concludes therefrom that the complainant does not face any risk of
being subjected to treatment inconsistent with article 3 on grounds of political activities.
4.5 The complaint before the Committee consists mainly of statements and evidence already
put before CRA. This authority noted that neither the police summonses, nor the letter of
corroboration from a former work colleague of the complainant’s, referred to prosecutorial
measures in the meaning of the law on asylum and that these documents were not sufficiently
significant to justify a review. For example, the police summonses are virtually silent on the
legal grounds and reasons for which the complainant is being sought. Likewise, the undated
written testimony of his former work colleague contains no important new information. In
addition, it is surprising, to say the least, that the complainant should have submitted this
evidence only after the completion of the normal domestic procedures, that is, after the CRA
decision of 20 October 2005.
4.6 After considering the case, CRA highlighted numerous inconsistencies that have not been
explained by the complainant, either before the national authorities or before the Committee.
Several events, as described by the complainant, are illogical or contrary to general experience. It
should have been very much in K.A.’s interests for the complainant to remain in Algeria, under
his control. Indeed, it is unlikely that the complainant would have waited several months to leave
Algeria after quitting his job if he had felt seriously threatened by K.A. Similarly, if K.A. had
been as influential as the complainant describes, it is doubtful that the latter would have