CAT/C/31/D/210/2002
Page 3
2.1
On 6 November 1992, the complainant and his wife entered Denmark and
immediately applied for asylum. On 5 November 1993, the Danish Refugee Board
upheld a previous decision of the Directorate of Immigration according to which the
complainant and his family had to leave Denmark by 20 November 1993. The
complainant and his family left Denmark and returned to Russia.1
2.2
On 26 July 1994, and upon returning to the Russian Federation from Denmark,
the complainant alleges that he was arrested and charged with unlawfully crossing the
border, participating in subversive offences and defaming persons representing authority.
He alleges that he was detained by the authorities from 26 July 1994 to 20 January 1998
and was subjected to various forms of torture, including having gas passed up through his
windpipe until he vomited and forcing him to swallow soup straight from a bowl with his
hands tied behind his back. In January 1996, he alleges to have been sentenced to three
and a half years imprisonment for having unlawfully crossed the border, and having
participated in subversive offences. Upon release, he became a member of the Citizens’
Union where he carried out activities on civil rights issues. As a result of these activities,
he alleges to have come into conflict with the authorities, which again deprived him of
his liberty and subjected him to torture.
2.3
On 15 July 1999, the complainant and his wife and child entered Denmark for the
second time; the next day, they applied for asylum. On 19 December 2001, the Danish
Immigration Service refused asylum. On 21 March 2002, the Refugee Board upheld this
decision and the complainant and his family were asked to leave Denmark. The
complainant requested the Refugee Board to reopen the case, as he claimed that an
opinion of the Department of Forensic Medicine of 21 December 2000 (“opinion of 21
December 2000”) was defective. He also stated that his wife had been subjected to torture
and that she had had flashbacks during the Board hearing, as one of the Board members
reminded her of a Russian police officer. On 27 June 2002, the Refugee Board
considered his application but refused to reopen the asylum case.
The complaint:
3.1
The complainant claims that as there is a real risk that he will be subjected to
torture on return to the Russian Federation, his forced return would constitute a violation
of article 3 of the Convention. He supports his fear of torture with the allegation that he
was previously tortured, was an active member of the Citizens’ Union, and was convicted
of a criminal offence.
3.2
According to the complainant, the opinion of 21 December 2000 on which the
Refugee Board largely based its decision not to grant him asylum was not thorough and
was open to interpretation. He claims that this opinion does not deny that he suffers from
chronic post traumatic stress disorder caused by the effects of torture. He also contends
that the opinion refers to scars on his body caused by previous acts of torture.
3.3 In addition, he states that even if he does suffer from paranoid psychosis (as stated
in the same opinion) a return to the Russian Federation would involve detention in prison,
where he claims it is the ordinary practice of the authorities to torture detainees, or
detention in a closed psychiatric institution.
1
The exact date of their return is not provided.