CAT/C/38/D/300/2006
page 4
he would be retried for the same offences for which he had already been convicted and punished,
should he return to his country” and “the fact that, after his deportation to Tunisia, he remained
at liberty but had been placed under close police surveillance without being arrested must be
regarded as evidence of a desire on the part of the Tunisian authorities to disguise their true
intentions towards him, particularly in view of the attention which this case has attracted in the
international media”.
The complaint
3.1 The complainant alleges a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He cites the Tunisian
Criminal Code, the Military Code of Pleadings and Penalties, and the anti-terrorist law of
10 December 2003, which prescribe penalties for activities carried out outside Tunisia. He
argues that he will be convicted and imprisoned again for the acts for which he has already
served a sentence in France.
3.2 The complainant argues that terrorism cases involving Tunisian nationals provoke a
particularly strong reaction in Tunisia. Several individuals convicted under article 123 of the
Code of Military Pleadings and Penalties or the anti-terrorist law of 10 December 2003 have
been severely tortured after being deported by a third country to Tunisia. The complainant cites
several examples of Tunisians who were allegedly subjected to torture or ill-treatment after
arriving in Tunisia. He recalls that many persons accused of engaging in activities relating to
terrorism are often tortured by the Tunisian authorities in order to extract confessions from them.
He further recalls that conditions of detention in Tunisia are inhuman and degrading, without
giving further details.
3.3 The complainant contends that the Tunisian authorities cannot be ignorant of his
conviction in France, since it was the subject of numerous press articles. His family in Tunisia
contacted two lawyers to try to ascertain whether proceedings had already been instituted in
Tunisia against the complainant. The two lawyers were unable to obtain this information from
the clerks of the courts concerned.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 On 18 October 2006, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and
merits of the complaint. It argued that it is inadmissible, because the complainant did not appeal
against the decisions taken by the interim relief judge (see paragraph 2.4 above). Likewise, the
appeals on the substance of the case are still pending before the Paris Administrative Court and,
consequently, the complainant has not exhausted all domestic remedies.
4.2 On the merits, the State party considers the complaints brought by the complainant to be
manifestly unfounded. At no point did he provide material and irrefutable evidence of the threats
that he would allegedly face upon return to Tunisia. In the first place, during the procedure prior
to the decision to establish Tunisia as the country of destination, he evinced no specific
arguments that would have led the French authorities to conclude that his personal security
would not be assured in his country of origin. Secondly, he failed to provide solid evidence to
OFPRA when it reviewed his request for asylum. In its decision of 28 July 2006, that body found
that there was no evidence to suggest that the complainant would face personal persecution if he
returned to a country to which he had in any case returned several times since 1985.