CAT/C/30/D/191/2001
page 4
2.5
Nuhuman drove the complainant to Colombo from where he left Sri Lanka by plane on
14 February 1997, under the name of Mohamed Alee, using a forged Sri Lankan passport. He
first flew to Dubai and then to Ukraine, where he stayed for five months. On 1 August 1997, a
Russian “travel agent” took him to an unknown place by truck from where he crossed a river
together with five other Tamils. They were brought to a city in Poland unknown to the
complainant and took a train to Berlin. On 14 August 1997, the Russian guide brought the
complainant to the Netherlands where he applied for admission as a refugee and for a residence
permit on 15 August 1997. The same day, he was first interviewed by an officer of the Dutch
Immigration and Naturalization Department (IND), who asked him about his identity and
nationality, civil status, family connections, travel and other documents, the date and manner of
departure from Sri Lanka, as well as the route by which he travelled to the Netherlands.
2.6
By letter of 16 February 1998, the complainant filed an objection with the IND against its
failure to take a decision on his refugee application within the prescribed time limit of six
months. On 7 April 1998, he lodged an appeal with the District Court in Zwolle against the
IND’s failure to take a timely decision on the objection. He withdrew the appeal on 4 June 1998
after the IND had promised to expedite its decision, but renewed it by letter, dated
28 August 1998, because IND had not kept its promise. By decision of 18 November 1998, the
district court ordered the IND to decide on the complainant’s application within six weeks.
2.7
On 6 October 1998, the complainant was interviewed a second time, assisted by an
interpreter. In the three-hour interview, the complainant reiterated his statement made during the
first interview that his wife was three months pregnant when he left her in June 1996, that he did
not meet her again after he had left Killinochi, and that he was hiding during his two-month stay
in Mullaitivu. As to his family situation, he stated that his father had died during a bombing raid
by the Sri Lankan army and that one of his daughters had died of fever because she could not be
brought to a hospital in time due to a curfew. By letter of 1 December 1998, the complainant’s
former lawyer challenged the circumstances of the second interview. At the same time, he
submitted letters the complainant had received from his wife, indicating that she had given birth
to a child on 21 May 1997.
2.8
On 11 February 1999, the complainant was heard by an IND committee. The hearing
concentrated on the contradiction between the complainant’s statement that his wife was three
months pregnant when he left her in June 1996 and the fact that she gave birth to a child on
21 May 1997. At the end of the hearing, the complainant’s former lawyer told the commission
that he would clarify this matter. By letter of 26 February, the lawyer informed the IND that the
complainant insisted that his wife had been three months pregnant in June 1996. Furthermore,
he was not hiding in the strict sense of the word while staying in Mullaitivu and his wife
occasionally visited him there. His wife had a miscarriage, a fact not easily spoken about in
Hindu culture especially since, in Hindu religion, the birth of the lost child would have
represented the rebirth of the complainant’s deceased mother. The complainant did not even tell
his closest brother about this loss until February 1999.
2.9
On 15 March 1999 and on 22 April 1999, the IND asked the Bureau for Medical Advice
(BMA) whether the complainant needed medical treatment and whether he was healthy enough
to travel. On 20 May 1999, the IND rejected the objection against its failure to take a timely
decision on the complainant’s refugee application. At the same time, the complainant was
informed that his expulsion would be suspended pending receipt of medical advice by the BMA.