Page 4
concluded that his ability to present a story in an interview had been affected by his post
traumatic stress disorder. On 14 September 2002, based on the psychologist’s report, he
applied to the Refugee Board to re-open his case. The application was refused on 24
January 2003.
The complainant attributes the inconsistencies in his story to several factors.
First, he says that the interpreter provided to him spoke an ‘eastern’ form of Arabic which
he did not properly understand. His first language is said to be French. Secondly, he claims
that, as demonstrated by the psychologist’s report, he suffers from post-traumatic stress
disorder, and states that, in telling his story to the Danish authorities, he relived his
experiences of torture, which caused him great anxiety. He claims that being kept in
detention by the Danish authorities traumatized him and made it much more difficult for
him to provide a cogent and consistent account of his experiences. He refers to the
psychologist’s report, which concluded that his apparent untrustworthiness could be
attributable to his psychological dissociation.
Finally, the complainant refers to the UNHCR country report on Algeria dated
11-12 June 2001, which states that torture is widely practiced in Algeria, and that deserters
from the army, such as the complainant, face persecution and torture if they are returned to
The Complaint
3 .1
The complainant claims that he would be at risk of being tortured if he were
returned to Algeria, and that his return would constitute a violation of article 3 of the
Convention. He states that he has previously been subjected to torture in Algeria, and that,
given his false confession to having assisted the GIA, together with the general human
rights situation in Algeria, he is in danger of being subjected to torture again if returned.
The State party’s observations on admissibility and merit
In its observations dated 24 March 2003, the State party objects to the
admissibility of the claim, and makes submissions on the merits of the claim. In relation to
admissibility, it submits that the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case of a
violation of article 3,2 and that his complaint should be declared inadmissible.
In relation to the merits, the State party contends that the complainant’s return to
Algeria would not contravene article 3 of the Convention. It recalls that on 16 February
2000 he completed an application form, in Arabic, in which he provided information about
his reasons for seeking asylum in Denmark. He was counseled as to the importance of
providing all relevant information. He was interviewed by DIS officials on 11 December
2000 with the assistance of an interpreter, whom the complainant said he understood. A
report produced from this interview was reviewed together with the complainant. On 2
March 2001 the DIS refused the asylum application, and the complainant filed an appeal
with the Review Board. In May 2001, the Review Board agreed to stay proceedings so that
Amnesty International could arrange for a medical examination of the applicant. This
report was submitted on 20 June 2001 (see paragraph 2.3).

Reference is made to the Committee’s General Comment on the implementation of article 3, dated 21
November 1997.

Select target paragraph3