CAT/C/30/D/216/2002
page 3
2.2
Following his release, the complainant lived in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
for 23 years. In 1995, he allegedly wanted to sell land in Netanya, Israel, that he had inherited
from his mother, but he was unable to conclude the sale as Israeli law prescribed that the
transaction would have to take place in either Israel or Jordan, allegedly neither countries to
which he could travel. He contends that he rejected a PLO request to buy the land at a low price,
was threatened that he could not sell it elsewhere and labelled a traitor.
2.3
Upon return to the UAE after an attempt, in 1996, to sell the land in Lithuania, he was
arrested and detained for three months for rent arrears approximating US$ 3,000. He contends
that the real reason for his arrest was “political”, and that after his employer learnt of his efforts
to sell the land, his contract was not renewed. The complainant contends that the UAE
intelligence service then became aware that the PLO considered him a traitor, and his residence
permit was withdrawn.
2.4
As he did not want to return to Jordan for fear of persecution, the complainant left the
UAE in 1998 for Lithuania. He married a Lithuanian woman and was granted a residence
permit. On 6 November 1999, his residence permit expired and was not prolonged because his
wife, from whom he had separated, was opposed to the renewal. On 17 December 1999, the
complainant travelled to Sweden and applied for asylum on 20 December 1999. Attempting to
prolong his passport, the complainant’s (Jordanian) lawyer informed him that the Jordanian
security services requested his and his children’s presence in the country in order to do so. His
children and their mother reside in Damascus, Syria, on expired passports, and they allegedly
cannot travel to Jordan to renew them.
2.5
On 17 April 2001, the State party’s Migration Board denied the complainant’s
application. The Aliens Appeals Board rejected his appeal on 24 April 2002. A further
application (based upon factual circumstances that had not previously been examined by the
authorities) was rejected on 3 June 2002.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant contends that due to his continued efforts to sell land and his refusal to
cooperate with the PLO, he is regarded as disloyal to the Palestinian cause, and is at personal risk
of being subjected to torture in Jordan. He also fears that, as there is allegedly close cooperation
between the Jordanian authorities and the PLO, he may possibly be handed over to the PLO. He
cites reports of non-governmental organizations in support of the proposition that both Jordan
and the Palestinian Authority are engaged in gross, flagrant and mass violations of human
rights.2
3.2
The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted for examination
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
By letter of 18 November 2002, the State party contested the admissibility and merits
of the complaint, pointing out, as to the facts, that while in Lithuania, the complainant applied
on 30 November 1998 to its Embassy in Vilnius for a three-week visa in December 1998. At the