CAT/C/39/D/299/2006
Page 4
that his identity card had been confiscated during his detention in May 2003 was not
credible and that his declaration on his alleged persecution was vague and did not rely
on concrete facts.
2.7 On 19 August 2004, the complainant’s appeal was rejected by the Asylum
Appeals Board (CRA). Although the complainant submitted two documents to prove
his identity, a certificate of celibacy and a degree certificate, the Board considered that
these documents should have been submitted within the initial 48-hour deadline. It
further considered that the complainant was not credible.
2.8 On 24 August 2005, the complainant requested a reopening of the proceedings
and submitted further documents to prove his identity, including a UDPS membership
card, a certificate confirming his engagement as a UDPS activist and the party’s statutes,
as well as other documents related to the party’s activities. On 22 September 2005, the
CRA rejected this request on the ground that a decision not to consider the merits of the
case could not be quashed unless sufficient explanation was provided as to the delay in
submitting the relevant documents.
2.9 The complainant’s second request to reopen the proceedings was rejected by the
CRA on 4 January 2006, on the basis of his failure to pay the judicial fees. The CRA
also rejected his request to pay these fees on installments.
The complaint
3.1 The complainant claims that his deportation from Switzerland to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo would violate article 3 of the Convention, as there are serious
grounds to believe that he would be at risk of torture if returned. He notes that a search
warrant has been issued against him and that torture is a common practice in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. He refers to Amnesty International 2005 Report to
confirm this statement.
3.2 He further claims that the fact that his asylum application and the evidence
provided were not considered in substance violates the principles of article 3.
State party’s observations on the merits
4.1 On 20 February 2007, the State party does not contest the admissibility of the
communication. On the merits, the State party contends that the complainant has not
established a personal, real and foreseeable risk of torture upon his return to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. While noting the human rights situation in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party recalls that this situation is not in
itself a sufficient element to conclude that the complainant would be at risk of torture if
returned. It further recalls that the complainant has not submitted any evidence to
national authorities that proves the acts of ill treatment that he allegedly suffered while
he was detained in Gombé prison.
4.2 The State party notes that, according to the law in force at the time where the
proceedings against the complainant were held –the Asylum Act of 26 June 1998-,
Swiss authorities could not consider an asylum request if the asylum seeker had failed