CAT/C/31/D/236/2003
Page 3
complainant had scored the decisive goal. The same evening, two soldiers came to his
residence, looking for him. While attempting to escape, he allegedly - had to dodge
bullets fired by soldiers; however, he managed to escape.
2.3
The complainant argues that the security forces in Togo are controlled by the
Khabyé ethnic majority and frequently violate human rights, the Togolese Constitution
and domestic laws which protect the rights and freedoms of the individual.
2.4
The complainant left Togo, he arrived in Europe and requested asylum in
Switzerland on 30 May 2000. On 11 October 2000, the Federal Refugee Office refused
his application and ordered his deportation from Switzerland. On 19 November 2001, the
Asylum Appeals Commission dismissed his appeal and, on 15 July 2003, it confirmed the
decision of the Federal Refugee Office ordering the complainant’s deportation. On 18
September 2003, the Asylum Appeals Commission rejected his request to review its
decision of 15 July 2003.
The complaint:
3.1
The complainant claims that, upon being returned to Togo, he would be arrested
and subjected to torture for having sought asylum in another country, as well as for
having “humiliated the government in broad daylight” during the soccer match.
3.2
The complainant requests the Committee to order interim measures of protection,
to suspend the execution of the deportation order issued by the Swiss authorities.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
4.1
Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against
Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention.
4.2
The Committee notes that the information submitted by the complainant in
substantiation of his claim is general and vague and does not reveal the existence of any
personal and foreseeable risk of torture to which the complainant might be subjected in
the event of his return in Togo. The bare assertion of membership in a political party, in
the instant case the UFC, and the vague allegation that he was shot at while attempting to
escape, do not satisfy the Committee that the threshold of admissibility has been met in
the complainant’s case. In the circumstances, the Committee observes that the complaint,
as formulated, does not give rise to any arguable claim under the Convention.
4.3
Accordingly, the Committee finds, in accordance with article 22 of the
Convention and rule 107(b) of its revised Rules of Procedure, that the complaint is
manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible.
5.
Accordingly, the Committee decides:
a) that the complaint is inadmissible; and