CAT/C/63/D/731/2016
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant is Mr. X., a Congolese national, born in 1982. He submitted the
complaint on his own behalf, and on behalf of his wife, born in 1987, their daughter, born
in 2009, and their son, born in 2012.
2.2
The complainant claims that he has been an active member of the opposition party,
the Pan-African Union for Social Democracy, since 2008, and that he was responsible for
coordinating the youth advocacy activities in Kouilou region (Pointe-Noire) in the Congo.
On 17 October 2015, he actively mobilized the youth to participate in a protest in PointeNoire, organized by a coalition of opposition parties, the Republican Front for the Respect
of Constitutional Order and Democracy, against constitutional changes proposed by the
Congolese authorities. The police violently dispersed the protesters, killing many. On 28
October 2015, military officers arrested the complainant and his wife. While the
complainant’s wife was released the next day, the complainant remained in detention until
29 October 2015 and was released only after a friend paid a bribe to a high-ranking officer.
The complainant claims to have been regularly tortured while in detention. Upon release,
the complainant’s friends assisted him and his family to obtain French visas. The
complainant provided false names to the French consular authorities to avoid the risk of
being detained by the secret police before departure.
2.3
On 17 December 2015, the complainant and his family arrived in Norway and
applied for asylum there, without travelling through France. On 20 February 2016, the
Norwegian Directorate of Immigration rejected their applications and decided that the
family should be transferred to France under the Dublin Regulation because France had
granted them entry visas. France agreed to accept the complainant and his family. The
complainant’s request to the Immigration Appeals Board for the transfer to be deferred was
rejected on 1 March 2016.
2.4
The complainant claims that, if transferred to France, he and his family might be
handed over to the Congolese authorities because of the close political ties between the two
countries. He also claims that many Congolese opposition leaders have been poisoned or
allegedly died in France and he would not be safe there. He requested that his children’s
request for asylum should be processed in Norway since they had not been fingerprinted by
the French authorities. However, the Norwegian authorities decided that it would be in the
best interest of the children if they were transferred to France together with their parents.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that the transfer to France would violate his and his family’s
rights under articles 2 and 22 of the Convention in view of their possible further deportation
to the Congo or the threat to their lives in France.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
On 13 May 2016, the State party submitted its observations. It claims that the
communication should be found inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention on the
following grounds: it is an abuse of the right of submission and/or is manifestly unfounded;
it is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention; and the complainant failed to
exhaust all available and effective domestic remedies.
4.2
The State party advances three grounds for considering the communication to be
manifestly unfounded and an abuse of the right of submission under article 22 (2) of the
Convention. First, since the complainant’s and his family’s transfer to France on 21 March
2016, they have no further interest in the Committee’s decision. Second, the complainant
has failed to provide sufficient evidence for his allegations that Congolese opposition
leaders are not safe in France and that, if transferred to France, it is likely that he would be
handed over to the Congolese authorities. Third, the State party sees no reason to believe
that France would not comply with its international obligations, including under the
Convention.
2