decision to the Swiss Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters,
supporting his appeal with a medical report certifying that he might
have been tortured in the past. The Appeal Commission dismissed the
appeal on 8 July 1996, declaring it inadmissible on the grounds that
the deadline for submission of an appeal had not been met.
2.5 On 8 August 1996 the author submitted a request for
reconsideration of his case (an extraordinary recourse allowing for
review of decisions that had already been executed) by the Federal
Office for Refugees. The applicant specifically requested that it
should be noted that execution of his expulsion from Switzerland
constituted a violation of the principle of non-refoulement set out in
the Convention on the Status of Refugees (art. 33), the prohibition of
torture contained in article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights and articles 2 and 3 of the Convention against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The
Federal Office for Refugees rejected the request for reconsideration
on 9 August 1996, maintaining that the applicant had not presented
any new facts or evidence but was merely seeking to have the facts
set out in his initial appeal considered in a different light. (The
Federal Office for Refugees also ordered the immediate execution of
the applicant's expulsion from Switzerland, on the grounds that it was
not contrary to Switzerland's legislative or treaty obligations.)
2.6 On 8 September 1996 the author appealed against the decision of
the Federal Office for Refugees. In the light of the new appeal, in
which the author sought to prove that execution of his expulsion was
wrongful under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Swiss Appeal Commission
on Asylum Matters suspended execution of the expulsion and
authorized the author to remain in Switzerland pending the outcome
of his appeal. The Federal Office for Refugees was consulted in the
context of that appeal, and on 29 April 1997 it upheld its position that
the applicant's expulsion to the Syrian Arab Republic would place
him in physical danger. As part of the same appeal, the author's
counsel maintained his conclusions on 20 May 1997.
2.7 The appeal was considered on the merits and rejected by a
decision of the Appeals Commission dated 18 June 1998; the
Commission held that the applicant had not provided grounds for
reconsideration of his case and that he faced no real risk of torture
should he be sent back to the Syrian Arab Republic. Following that
decision the author was invited to leave Swiss territory by 15
February 1999.