had not reported to the police, after her release, as ordered. The author hid in
the mountains for six months with her children before she could leave the
country, allegedly with the help of PRE.
2.7 The author left Ecuador by car with her children and entered Colombia
on 15 August 1998. She travelled on a valid passport issued in September
1996. On 16 August 1998 she left Colombia and arrived in Denmark on 20
August 1998 after having stayed two days in the Netherlands. The author
immediately applied for asylum.
2.8 The author's request for asylum was turned down by the Danish
Immigration Service on 30 October 1998. Subsequent to her appealing the
Immigration Service's decision, the Refugee Board confirmed that decision
on 17 February 1999. On 24 March 1999, the non-governmental
organization "Let Bosnia Live", on behalf of the author, requested the Board
to re-examine the case in light of new information about the author's
political activities, including a letter from PRE and a copy of an order for
her arrest issued by the Ministry of the Interior, dated 26 February 1999. On
28 May 1999, the Board refused the author's request to renew her
application for asylum. On 30 July 1999 an appeal was made to the Ministry
of Interior on humanitarian grounds. It was refused on 12 August 1999.
2.9 The author further submits that the case is not and has not been the
subject of investigation or settlement, by any other international body.
Complaint
3. With reference to the facts presented, the author fears that she will be
subjected to renewed torture if she is returned to Ecuador and that her forced
return would therefore constitute a breach by Denmark of article 3 of the
Convention.
Observations by the State party
4.1 In a submission of 29 November 1999, the State party informs the
Committee that it does not contest the admissibility of the author's
communication as to the form. However, the State party submits that the
author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the admissibility of her
communication under article 22 of the Convention and that the Committee
should therefore declare it inadmissible. If the Committee does not dismiss
the communication for that reason, the State party submits that no violation
of the provisions of the Convention has occurred in relation to the merits of
the case.