CAT/C/31/D/203/2002
Page 4
1994. An internal review of this decision, requested by the complainant, confirmed the
original decision, and a subsequent appeal to the District Court in the Hague was
dismissed on 11 February 1997. The Court found that the complainant had had no
problems with the Iranian authorities between 1985 and 1994, and that there was no
objective evidence regarding the supposed arrest of his fellow group members in May
1994.
2.7
On 16 June 1997 the complainant filed a second application for refugee status,
this time accompanied by a letter from counsel and Iranian documents said to have been
issued by the Revolutionary Prosecutor’s Office in May 1994, namely a writ of summons,
and a copy of a document allegedly showing that the author’s residence had been placed
under seal. This application was also rejected, as the Dutch authorities did not consider
the Iranian documents to be authentic. An internal review confirmed the original
decision, and an appeal to the District Court in the Hague was dismissed on 23 February
2001. The Court found that the first asylum application had been dealt with
comprehensively; and agreed that the Iranian documents were not authentic, which cast
doubt on the complainant’s story. It also found that there was no link between the
complainant’s political activities in Iran and those subsequently carried out in the
Netherlands.
2.8
On 18 February 2002, the Aliens Police advised the complainant that he was
required to leave the Netherlands.
The Complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that he fears being subjected to torture if he is returned to
Iran by the Dutch authorities, and that his return to Iran would constitute a violation of
article 3 of the Convention. He states that he has previously been subjected to torture
whilst in custody because of his political activities in Iran, and that, given his subsequent
political activities both in Iran and in the Netherlands, he is in danger of being subjected
to torture again if returned to Iran. In this regard he also refers to the general human
rights situation in Iran, particularly reports of torture.
3.2
The complainant argues the Dutch authorities were wrong to conclude that he had
no difficulties with the Iranian authorities between 1985 and 1994, and that there was no
link between his political activities in Iran and those in the Netherlands. He claims that
his first asylum application was not properly dealt with by the Dutch authorities.
The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
By note dated 6 May 2002, the State party informed the Committee that it does
not object to the admissibility of the complaint; its observations on the merits of the
complaint were transmitted by note of 23 September 2002.
4.2
The State party contends that the complainant’s return would not violate its
obligations under article 3 of the Convention. It provides a detailed description of the
legal processes by which an application for refugee status in the Netherlands may be
made, and how administrative and judicial appeals may be prosecuted. The relevant
legislative framework for the admission and expulsion of aliens is set out in the Aliens
Act of 1965, as well as related enactments and regulations. Asylum seekers are
interviewed twice by the authorities, and on the second occasion the focus is on the