CAT/C/21/D/91/1997
page 6
4.11 The State party argues that the general situation in Tunisia is not such
that asylum seekers from that country can automatically be regarded as
refugees and that the author should be able to argue plausibly that certain
facts and circumstances exist that objectively justify his fear of persecution
within the meaning of the law relating to refugees.
4.12 The author’s individual account is above all implausible. He has made
conflicting statements on a number of points, including his nationality, the
reasons for his journey to the Netherlands, the route by which he travelled
there and his arrests in Tunisia. Furthermore, during the preparations for
his expulsion to Tunisia it was established on the basis of fingerprints
that he is known to the Tunisian authorities under the name of M. The
inconsistencies in the author’s statements are of a substantive nature and
indeed raise doubts about the general veracity of his claims.
4.13 The author has at no time been politically active, nor has he put
himself in the public eye as such in any other way. During the proceedings he
stated that he had no contact with the Al-Nahda party. He had problems solely
because he had contacts with a teacher who was a member and had helped him to
flee the country. Even if it is true that the author did help that person, he
has not convincingly shown that he experienced problems with the Tunisian
authorities as a result and that he was held in detention for nine days. Nor
has the author argued convincingly that he is to be prosecuted and brought to
trial. Even if this were true, the fact that the author was merely told to
report back a month after his release certainly does not suggest that the
Tunisian authorities consider him as a serious opponent.
4.14 The author has also argued that he had been found guilty of desertion.
The State party does not consider this plausible, because it is based solely
on a statement made by the author’s father and is not supported by any
documentary proof. The State party does not believe, in any case, that he
deserted on the basis of any political or religious conviction. It is not
plausible that the author would experience problems upon returning to his
country because of his desertion, since he cannot be regarded as a dissident.
It has not been convincingly argued that any punishment imposed for refusal to
perform military service will be disproportionately severe or that the author
will be subjected to discriminatory persecution instead of an ordinary
punishment.
4.15 The State party contends that whenever an asylum seeker states that he
has been ill-treated or tortured the Immigration and Naturalization Service
asks the Medical Assessment Section of the Ministry of Justice to give an
opinion. The doctors attached to this section can either examine the person
concerned themselves or seek the opinion of a medical practitioner who has
treated him. Given the limited capacity of this section, however, asylum
cases are only submitted to it for assessment when there are good reasons to
subject the individual concerned to further examination in the interest of
assessing his or her request for asylum. Aside from this, the individual
concerned or his legal representative can always consult a medical
practitioner independently. The latter can then supply a medical certificate
stating that certain scars could have been caused by the alleged ill-treatment
for use in the proceedings and the assessment of the request for asylum.