CAT/C/39/D/264/2005
Page 3
the allegations. At the same time, pursuant to rule 108, paragraph 9, of its rules of procedure,
the Committee requested the State party not to deport the complainant to Tunisia while his
complaint was being considered. The Committee reiterated this request in a note verbale
dated 19 January 2007.
1.3. In its comments dated 25 March 2005, the State party informed the Committee that, by
a decision of 4 February 2005, the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless
Persons (OFPRA) had granted the complainant subsidiary protection. On 15 April 2005,
pursuant to rule 109, paragraph 3, of its rules of procedure, the Committee decided to
consider the issue of admissibility separately from the merits of the complaint.
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1 On 26 June 2003 an order for escort to the border was issued against the complainant
by the prefect of police with a view to his removal to Tunisia. By a decision of 28 June 2003
the Paris Administrative Court revoked the order since it named Tunisia as the destination.
2.2. On 17 January 2005 the complainant was arrested following a routine check and placed
in administrative custody with a view to removal to Tunisia. The complainant claims to have
been in negotiation with OFPRA at the time of his arrest.
2.3. On 19 January 2005 the prefect of police issued another order for escort to the border.
An appeal against this order was rejected by the Paris Administrative Court on 22 January
2005.
The complaint
3.1 The complainant claims that sending him back to Tunisia would constitute a violation
of article 3 of the Convention. He points out that he is widely known as an opponent of the
Government of Tunisia, which has been pursuing him for many years. Indeed, his wife had
been threatened with violence to compel her to divorce him.
3.2 The complainant refers to decision of the Paris Administrative Tribunal 28 June 2003,
which notes that he was subjected to pressure and threats by the Tunisian authorities. This
decision found that the prefect of police had contravened article 27 of the Order of
2 November 1945, which provides that “no alien may be sent to a country if they prove that
their life or freedom would be in danger there or that they would be at risk of treatment
contrary to article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms”. On these grounds, the Court revoked the decision of the police
prefect, which named Tunisia as the destination.
3.3. The complainant also points out that, during its consideration, at a public meeting, of
Tunisia’s second periodic report to the Committee against Torture, the Committee described
Tunisia as a country with a “culture of torture”.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1 In its observations of 25 March 2005, the State party challenges the admissibility of the
complaint. In respect of the facts of the case, the State party maintains that the complainant
has entered France illegally and under various identities on several occasions since 1986. On
19 March 1996, following his third illegal entry, he applied to OFPRA for refugee status but