CAT/C/31/D/215/2002
Page 4
The complaint
3.1
In his initial submission the complainant argues that his deportation to Colombia would
constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention, since he faced the risk of being
subjected to further torture in Colombia.
3.2
The complainant contends that the Swedish complainantities had no grounds for their
decision to refuse him asylum, since note was merely taken of the fact that the Colombian
Government had drawn up programmes which would protect Mr. Grueso Vargas, without taking
into account the fact that the complainant had been tortured in Colombia. He further claims that
the Swedish complainantities based their refusal on the lack of credibility that they attached to
his assertions, although he submitted medical certificates as evidence of torture.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its observations of 30 October 2002, the State party asserts that the same matter should
be considered as having been submitted to another procedure of international settlement, since
the complainant submitted his complaint to the European Court of Human Rights. It adds that
the complainant decided to withdraw his case because no interim measures were adopted, even
though the complaint had not yet been formally registered.
4.2
The State party acknowledges that all domestic remedies have been exhausted; it
nevertheless maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on the basis of
article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, since the complaint is not sufficiently
substantiated.
4.3
Should the Committee declare the complaint to be admissible, the State party asserts that,
as regards the merits of the complaint, returning the complainant to Colombia would not
constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It points out that, according to the
Committee’s jurisprudence, application of article 3 of the Convention must take account of (a)
the general human rights situation in the country, and (b) the danger personally faced by the
complainant of being subjected to torture in the country to which he is returned.
4.4
The State party points out that it is aware of the general human rights situation in
Colombia, and considers that it is unnecessary to expand on it; the State party therefore restricts
itself to considering the complainant’s personal risk of being subjected to torture upon return to
Colombia. It affirms that the circumstances invoked by the complainant are not sufficient
evidence that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in Colombia, and
refers in this connection to the Committee’s jurisprudence on the interpretation of article 3 of the
Convention.5
4.5
The State party adds that the complainant’s credibility is of vital importance in taking a
decision on the application for asylum, and that the national authorities conducting the
interviews are naturally in an excellent position to assess that credibility. The State party
contends that the common feature of the complainant’s declarations to the Migration Board and
to the Aliens Appeals Board lies in the doubts they raised as to his credibility. It stresses that the
complainant applied for asylum several days after the Sollotuna District Court had handed down