CAT/C/31/D/209/2002
Page 6
then to Denmark. As to his military service, the complainant stated in his asylum
application that he was in the army from 1991 to 1994. However, in his interview with the
DIS, he said he was in the army from 1990 to 1998. Further, the complainant first told the
Danish authorities that he fled Algeria after being released from imprisonment and
returning to the military, but subsequently stated that he fled the country directly from the
military hospital. For the State party, such discrepancies cannot be described as minor; they
are material discrepancies of fact which the Government is entitled to rely on in assessing
credibility.
4.8
The State party adds that at no time did the complainant raise any language
difficulties with the authorities. He filled out his application form in Arabic, and could have
done so in French if he had indicated such a preference. It also notes that the psychologist’s
report was taken into account by the Refugee Board in its decision not to reopen the
complainant’s case, and that it did not add new material or information.
4.9
The State party states that it could not establish that the complainant had been
subjected to torture, but that, according to the Committee’s case law, even if it had, this
would be only one element in considering his case. And in this instance, particularly in
view of the complainant’s lack of credibility, there was no evidence to suggest that he
risked being subjected to torture if returned to Algeria.
The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
In his comments on the State party’s observations, dated 30 May 2003, the
complainant challenges the government’s interpretation of the Amnesty International
report. He claims that the report, prepared by doctors and not psychologists, found there
were no ‘immediate’ signs of mental problems. The Amnesty International test was not
directed at assessing his psychological state, but evaluating the physical markings on his
body, and these were found to be consistent with the torture he had described. He states
that the Review Board was wrong to conclude that the psychologist’s report did not contain
any new material warranting a reopening of the case; this report is not only new evidence,
but the only evidence in relation to his psychological state. He reiterates that the
inconsistencies in his accounts are explained by the psychologist’s report.
Issues before the Committee
6.1
Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee
against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the
Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22,
paragraph 5(a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being
considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The
Committee notes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not contested by the State
party. The State party objects to admissibility on the grounds that the complainant has not
established a prima facie case of a violation of article 3, but the Committee is of the view
that the author has provided sufficient information in substantiation of his claim to consider
his complaint on the merits. As the Committee sees no further obstacles to the admissibility
of the communication, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to a consideration
of the merits.
6.2
The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainant to
Algeria would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1 of the