CAT/C/21/D/97/1997
page 4
imprisonment for his activities and affiliation with the PKK. He had been
sent the verdict by his father in Turkey. On 7 March 1995 the Aliens Appeals
Board rejected the new application. The Board found that the author’s
explanation of why he had not revealed his affiliation with the PKK at an
earlier stage was not credible and questioned the authenticity of the verdict
of the military court.
2.7
The author filed a second new application in which he requested that the
Board clarify its grounds for challenging the authenticity of the verdict.
This application was also turned down. The Board pointed out that military
tribunals no longer handled that type of case in Turkey and noted that the
stamps on the document were inconsistent with Turkish law.
2.8
The author changed counsel and filed a third new application based on
the medical examinations performed by a psychiatrist and a forensic expert
from the Centre for Torture and Trauma Survivors (CTD) at the Karolinska
University Hospital in Stockholm. The medical reports indicated, inter alia,
that the author suffers from post-traumatic stress syndrome which can be
attributed to his having been tortured and that the claim of torture appeared
to be entirely credible. The author also submitted a transcript of the
Security Court decision in which his brother was sentenced to 15 years’
imprisonment for his connections with the PKK. One of the accused before the
court disclosed that the author, who was mentioned by name, had participated
in an unlawful fund-raising transaction for the PKK. The author also pointed
out that the verdict of the military court had been handed down in 1993, at a
time when the military courts were still competent in such cases. This new
application was rejected on 1 September 1997 on the grounds that the author
lacked credibility. As for the medical evidence, the Board considered it
insufficient to conclude that the author’s injuries had been caused by
torture.
The complaint
3.1
The author’s counsel argues that the Swedish authorities have based
their decisions not to grant asylum on their assessment that the author lacks
credibility; however, they have overlooked the factors explaining his
behaviour and attitude. For instance, he was only 20 years old when he
arrived in Sweden. Prior to his arrival he had lived a long time under severe
stress and had a well-founded fear of persecution. In this context, he was
instructed by the persons who assisted him to flee to destroy the passport
with which he arrived and not to reveal the name on the passport. It could
not be expected that, at this point, he would be in a position to understand
the weight the Swedish authorities would attach to these circumstances. He
applied for asylum on the second day after his arrival, which can hardly be
considered a significant delay. His relatives strongly advised him not to
reveal any personal link with the PKK because of the risk of being considered
a terrorist by the Swedish authorities. During the initial interview the
author explained the basic elements that had provoked his flight to Sweden.
These are not inconsistent with his subsequent amendments.
3.2
Contrary to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Swedish
authorities have not taken into account all relevant circumstances in their
assessment of a future risk of torture. They have, moreover, attached