CAT/C/21/D/91/1997
page 7
4.16 In the present case the author did not indicate that he had
psychological problems until a letter of 17 October 1997, i.e. three and
a half years after his arrival in the Netherlands. During the proceedings
concerning his first asylum request he never mentioned having had traumatic
experiences.
4.17 In connection with the author’s alleged medical problems, the State
party observes that he has not submitted a single medical document. His
claims about certain scars were too insubstantial to prompt a medical
examination. Even if it is assumed that the author is indeed experiencing
psychological problems, the Aliens Advisory Office held, in its report on this
case dated 23 October 1997, that, given the available information on the
opportunities for obtaining psychiatric treatment in Tunisia, there is no need
for the author to remain in the Netherlands for the purpose of receiving
psychiatric treatment.
4.18 The State party further contends that, according to sources such as
Amnesty International and the UNHCR, supporters of the Al-Nahda party risk
being subjected to torture or inhuman treatment in Tunisian prisons. For this
reason it exercises particular care in decisions on requests for asylum
received by members of this group. It has been established, however, that the
author is not a supporter of the Al-Nahda party. Moreover, he has failed to
make a convincing case for his assertion that because of his ties with
supporters of this party he risks being tortured in prison. In any case,
the author has failed to argue plausibly that on the basis of his ethnic
background, his alleged political affiliation and his history of detention he
would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return. The State
party is therefore of the opinion that the communication is ill-founded.
Counsel’s comments
5.1
In his comments on the observations made by the State party, counsel
points out that the State party did not include in its submission to the
Committee the information provided by the author in his follow-up interview
with the immigration authorities where he acknowledged having lied about his
identity and nationality and explained his reasons for having done so. The
inconsistencies referred to by the State party were explained in that
interview, a report of which has been provided to the Committee. Counsel also
refers to previous jurisprudence in which the Committee noted that some of the
author’s claims and corroborating evidence had been submitted only after the
refugee claim had been refused by the refugee board and deportation procedures
had been initiated and concluded that this behaviour was not uncommon among
victims of torture.
5.2
With respect to the different statements about his nationality, the
author explained that during his first interviews he was too afraid to
immediately give his correct country of origin and name in view of the fact
that Tunisia is a popular tourist destination and for that reason Tunisians
are not granted asylum in Europe. In any case the Tunisian Embassy has
confirmed that the author is indeed a Tunisian citizen.