CAT/C/63/D/731/2016
4.3
In addition, the State party alleges that the communication is incompatible with the
provisions of the Convention under article 22 (2) and rule 113 (c) of the Committee’s rules
of procedure. The State party is responsible only for acts or omissions under its jurisdiction.
The complainant’s allegations against France should be directed against France and not
against Norway.
4.4
The State party alleges that the complainant has not met the requirement of article
22 (5) (b) of the Convention because he did not appeal against the decision of the
administrative authorities before the domestic courts. The complainant could have appealed
against the decision of the Immigration Appeals Board of 1 March 2016 refusing to defer
the transfer to France; he could also have requested the said decision to be invalidated. He
could have appealed against the decision of the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration
dated 20 February 2016 to have him and his family transferred to France (pending before
the Immigration Appeals Board at the time of the State party’s submission) and appeal
further the outcome, if need be. He could also have complained to the courts about a breach
of his rights under the Convention.
4.5
Thus, the State party asks the Committee to find the communication inadmissible.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.
On 18 July 2016, the complainant informed the Committee that he and his family
applied for asylum in France upon their transfer from Norway. The outcome of the asylum
procedure is still unclear. The complainant denies that his submission is an abuse of
procedure and that it is manifestly unfounded. He states that the allegations raised in his
original complaint remain valid. The complainant asks the Committee to underline to the
State party that it should accept his and his family’s asylum request because of the death
threats to him in France and the likelihood of his deportation to the Congo.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has
ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same
matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement.
6.2
In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not
consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted
all available domestic remedies.
6.3
The Committee takes into account the observations of the State party that the
complainant has not brought before the domestic courts the issues raised before the
Committee in the context of the present communication. It notes that, according to the State
party, the complainant could, in particular, have appealed against the decision of the
Immigration Appeals Board of 1 March 2016 refusing to defer the transfer to France; he
could also have requested that the decision be invalidated; and he could have appealed
against the decision of the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration of 20 February 2016 to
have him and his family members transferred to France, and appeal further against the
outcome of this appeal. The Committee notes that the complainant does not refute these
observations and does not deny the fact that he has not appealed the administrative
decisions in court. Neither does he provide any comments on this point or identify grounds
that could render domestic remedies ineffective. In such circumstances and taking into
account the provisions of its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of
article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (paras. 31, 34–35), the Committee
finds the present communication inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.
7.
The Committee therefore decides:
(a)
That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the
Convention;
3