CAT/C/20/D/48/1996
page 3
3.1
By a letter dated 17 May 1996, the Committee transmitted the
communication to the State Party for its comments on its admissibility.
3.2
It appears from a letter from the author dated 22 October 1996 that he
is now living in Ireland, where he has filed a request for asylum.
3.3
By a letter dated 17 April 1998, the State Party requested the Committee
to declare the communication inadmissible on the ground that it had become
irrelevant. The State Party observed that, after being informed of the
deposit of the communication with the Committee, ODR decided on 10 May 1996
not to expel the author from Switzerland. The author nonetheless left
Switzerland, arriving on 3 July 1996 in Ireland and filing an application for
asylum there. Furthermore, he has authorized the Irish authorities to contact
the competent Swiss authorities to obtain from them documents he needs in
connection with the new asylum proceedings. The State Party argues that it
can therefore be considered that it is in Ireland that the author now wishes
to obtain asylum.
3.4
Given that the author left Switzerland nearly two years ago and has
since been involved in formalities aimed at obtaining asylum in another
country, the State Party believes that the question of incompatibility of the
ODR decision of 19 January 1993 to expel the author from Switzerland with
article 3 of the Convention is of no practical or topical interest.
3.5
In his comments of 8 May 1998, the author's Swiss counsel points out
that, although the author was indeed informed that ODR authorized him to
remain in Switzerland, the formal notification of the decision indicated that
the authorization was valid only until 30 June 1996. He explains that, in
view of the absence of any request pursuant to rule 108, paragraph 9, of the
Committee's rules of procedure, the author panicked and left Switzerland. The
author had alleged that the cantonal police had orally warned him that, unless
he left Switzerland within two weeks, they would take him to the Syrian
Consulate General so that he might obtain a travel document.
3.6
The counsel's view is that, since the author could not legally have
remained in Switzerland to await the outcome of the proceedings before the
Committee, the State Party cannot reasonably maintain that those proceedings
have become irrelevant because the author filed an application for asylum in
Ireland in July 1996. The counsel observes that that application is still
pending and that the question of the incompatibility of the author's forced
return with article 3 of the Convention is therefore very definitely of
practical and topical interest. He states that, because of an article in the
press, the author no longer feels safe in Dublin and would like to return to
Switzerland.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
4.1
Before considering any of the allegations in a communication, the
Committee Against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is
admissible under article 22 of the Convention.