CAT/C/66/D/829/2017
purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention. 3 The risk of torture must be assessed on
grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 4
4.4
The State party considers Benin to be a stable parliamentary democracy that is free
from persecution. If acts of torture or ill-treatment are perpetrated there, such acts can be
described as occasional, as noted in a report published by the United States Department of
State in 2016. Moreover, the general human rights situation is not sufficient in itself to
determine whether the complainant’s deportation is compatible with article 3 of the
Convention.
4.5
The State party notes that the complainant claimed to both the national authorities
and the Committee that he had been tortured during his detention. The State party also
notes that, in its decision of 22 March 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration found that
his allegations of sexual violence had been submitted late. In this regard, the complainant
refers to a medical certificate dated 30 March 2015, which had not been brought to the
attention of the Swiss authorities; the certificate states that victims of torture cannot recount
their experiences unless an atmosphere of security and trust has been created and that this
can be very difficult to achieve in the presence of persons linked to the authorities.
According to that document, the explanation that the complainant gave to the doctor at the
Medical Treatment of Violence Unit of Lausanne University Hospital, with whom he had
established a relationship of trust, was consistent with the signs of injuries to his private
parts. It is clear from the Federal Administrative Court judgment of 1 June 2016 that the
complainant’s multiple sequelae were not contested. The Court found, however, that the
two medical certificates of 15 July and 28 September 2015 submitted to the national
authorities did not establish the origin of those sequelae and therefore did not confirm the
complainant’s claims that they were the result of injuries inflicted on him by persons in the
pay of former President Thomas Boni Yayi’s Government on account of his indirect
involvement in the attempted coup attributed to the current President of Benin. The Court
thus concluded that the certificates did not contain any fresh evidence that might influence
its assessment of the credibility of the complainant’s account as far as the risk of
persecution was concerned.
4.6
The State party adds that the complainant did not profess, either to the national
authorities or to the Committee, to have taken part in political activities.
4.7
The State party notes that Patrice Talon, whom the complainant claims is linked to
the activities for which he was arrested, is the current President of the Republic of Benin. It
also notes that, according to the complainant, Patrice Talon is his wife’s uncle. Furthermore,
Patrice Talon and all those involved in the attempted coup were pardoned by the former
President of Benin in May 2014. Thus the political environment has fundamentally changed
since the complainant left the country.
4.8
The complainant has never explained why he still fears that he would be persecuted
if he were to return to Benin and that he would not be protected by his country’s authorities.
Moreover, it appears from the case file that the complainant’s wife, Patrice Talon’s niece,
has never been subjected to any harassment, despite the accusations allegedly levelled at
her husband.
4.9
For the most part the State party draws attention to the decisions of the national
authorities, which note the absence of evidence as well as numerous contradictions and
implausible claims in the complainant’s account of the persecution and ill-treatment that he
allegedly suffered in his country.
4.10 With regard to the complainant’s mental health, the State party takes note of the
medical certificates provided but contests the claim that the complainant would not have
access to appropriate psychiatric care in his country. The national authorities thoroughly
examined the complainant’s state of health. As the Federal Administrative Court noted,
there are several specialist centres in Cotonou where the complainant could receive
appropriate care.
3
4
4
Ibid., para. 10.5; and J.U.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/21/D/100/1997), paras. 6.3 and 6.5.
General comment No. 1, para. 6.
GE.19-12653