CAT/C/38/D/268/2005
page 4
3.4 The complainant has submitted copies of two letters to prove his allegation that the
Pakistani authorities are still looking for him. The first letter, dated 4 April 2005, is signed by
Mr. N.A. Butt, a lawyer of the Sialkot High Court. He states that he is personally acquainted
with the complainant and affirms that the complainant “is implicated in a case of murder
trumped up by the police because of the influence of the current regime”. He adds that the local
police is “everywhere to arrest him wherever he may be in Pakistan”. He concludes that the
complainant’s life is in danger and advises him to remain abroad. The second letter, dated
11 April 2005, is signed by Mr. Khawaja Mohammad Asif, a member of the National Assembly
of Pakistan. He claims that the complainant “is a senior official of the young people’s branch of
the Pakistani Muslim League”. He maintains that, since his party was in power at the time of
the 1999 military coup, all its members have become the target of persecution by the State. For
this reason, the leaders of the party have gone into self-imposed exile in Saudi Arabia, and
many party members have fled abroad. Mr. Asif himself was arrested for five months
(October 1999-February 2000) and was never brought before a judge. According to him, the
complainant’s life and liberty are in grave danger if the complainant returns to Pakistan,
particularly because the trumped-up case against him is still pending and he risks imprisonment
and torture.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.
In a note verbale dated 1 June 2005, the State party declares that it does not challenge the
admissibility of the request.
Additional information from the complainant
5.
On 5 July 2005, the complainant transmitted to the Committee an official summons
dated 26 April 2005, inviting him to appear before the judge for the crime that he allegedly
committed.
State party’s observations on the merits
6.1 In a note verbale dated 12 October 2005, the State party maintains that the complainant
confines himself to reiterating the reasons that he invoked before the Swiss authorities. He does
not adduce any new and relevant information that would allow it to question the Swiss Asylum
Review Board’s decision of 2 December 2004.
6.2 The State party recalls that the complainant must prove that there is for him a personal,
actual and serious risk of being subjected to torture if he is deported to his country of origin. It
also recalls that, even if there exists a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights in the State of origin, it must nevertheless be established whether the complainant
would “personally” be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to his country. The
mere fact that the complainant is likely to be arrested and tried would not constitute substantial
grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.1 Likewise, the
1
See communication No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, Views adopted on 17 November 1997,
para. 10.5; and communication No. 65/1997, I.A.O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 6 May 1998,
para. 14.5.