Merits of the complaint
3. The author bases his complaint on the allegation that if he is sent
back to the Syrian Arab Republic by Switzerland he risks being
subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; specifically, he
risks being tortured by the authorities. He also believes that, if sent
back, he would risk torture because he left the Syrian Arab Republic
illegally. In the author's view, it is clear that a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant and massive violations of human rights exists in that
country which, under article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, constitute circumstances that a State party must take into
account when deciding to expel someone. Consequently, the author
believes that Switzerland should not expel him, or else risk violating
the Convention.
Observations by the State party on admissibility
4.1 In its note dated 12 May 1999, the State party describes the
various stages of the process followed by the author in seeking
asylum. It specifically faults the author for not meeting the deadlines
for appealing against the decision by the Federal Office for Refugees
not to grant political asylum. The State party claims that failure to
meet the deadline for filing an appeal made it necessary for the Swiss
Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters to conduct an extraordinary
review of the case, based solely on the existing case file, in order to
determine whether the applicant faced an obvious risk of persecution
or treatment that violated human rights in his country of origin. That
review, according to the State party, was narrower in scope than the
review that the Appeal Commission would have conducted had the
appeal been filed through regular channels. Nevertheless, the State
party declares that it does not contest the admissibility of the
communication.
The author's comments on the State party's observations on
admissibility
5.1 The author addresses his comments to the observations made by
the State party on 28 June 1999. He acknowledges that the review
process focused exclusively on whether Switzerland had complied
with its international obligations and not on Swiss legislation
governing asylum. The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Swiss
Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters (JICRA 1995, No. 5), which
states that "an applicant for asylum had the right, independently of
formal questions of deadlines, to have the question of whether his or