CAT/C/40/D/311/2007
Page 4
and that in any case, all similar complaints are dismissed on various grounds, even when the
complaints were filed by lawyers.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that if he is forcibly removed to Belarus (or Ukraine), the State
party would violate his rights under article 3 of the Convention against torture.
State party’s observations
4.1 The State party presented its observations on 10 July 2007. It notes that on 6 March
2007, the complainant was issued a new passport by the Belarus Embassy in Switzerland. No
evidence was presented by the complainant to show that the copies of letters, presented on 3
April 2007, by which he purported to renounce his nationality were ever mailed. There is no
information on the outcome of the request, and it is not clear whether Belarus law allows for
Belarus nationals to become stateless. In any case, it is unclear how these documents would
impact on an eventual risk of torture for the complainant in Belarus2.
4.2 The State party recalls that before Swiss asylum authorities, the complainant claimed
that he was persecuted in Belarus because of political activities. He also affirmed that when
he left Belarus, he followed the recommendation of the local authorities. After his illegal
return to Belarus, he allegedly continued his official activities. According to the information
in the present communication, the complainant’s company functioned as a clearing house for
the printing of political materials in Russia and for related financial operations. Having being
located by the authorities in April 1999, he allegedly had taken residence in Ukraine in
August 2000. The complainant met his future spouse in Ukraine. Later, he was arrested by
the police there in relation to his activities as an electoral observer. He faced difficulties with
the authorities by allegedly contributing to the clarification of the circumstances of a car
accident of 2001, in which the Mayor of Khmelnitsky had died. After having been informed
by the Ukrainian Migration Office that his permit to stay had expired, he and his spouse left
to Switzerland.
4.3 The State party observes that the complainant never contended before Swiss authorities
that he was detained in Belarus. However, in his initial submission in the present
communication, he affirms that he was arrested in Vitebsk on 18 November 1999 and was
released on 8 February 2000, after the criminal case against him was closed. Allegedly, while
in detention, he was ill-treated by other co-detainees. Subsequently, on 25 February 2005, the
complainant affirmed that in fact he was humiliated by co-detainees.
4.4 The State party notes that article 3 of the Convention prohibits States parties from
extraditing an individual to a State if there are serious grounds to believe that the individual
2
As to the complainant’s affirmation that he risks to be expelled in Ukraine, the State party
notes that the complainant had lived in Ukraine, where he has relatives and his companion is
Ukrainian national. Given that he is Belarusian national only, his eventual expulsion can be
made only to that country. The CRA has therefore correctly concluded that the complainant’s
allegations of the persecutions he suffered in Ukraine to be non pertinent. The State party
affirms that notwithstanding, it would demonstrate that the complainant does not risk to be
persecuted in Ukraine.