CAT/C/24/D/116/1998
page 4
appeal against this decision, but it was declared inadmissible on 18 June 1998 by the Swiss
Appeal Commission on Asylum Matters, on the grounds that the author had not paid the full
amount needed to cover the cost of the proceedings until four days after the deadline.
Merits of the complaint
3.1
The author states that, if he were returned to the DRC, he would be tortured and
summarily executed. Given the fact that he carried out his professional activities in his own
neighbourhood, that he had sent many people from that neighbourhood to be tortured if not to
their death, and that he enjoyed many privileges, there are grounds for believing that he has
certainly not been forgotten and that, if he returned to Kinshasa, the fate awaiting him would be
commensurate with his actions. The numerous documents he has produced during the asylum
proceedings also provide substantial reasons for believing that this fear is well founded.
Observations by the State party
4.1
By letter of 23 November 1998, the State party informed the Committee that it did not
contest the admissibility of the communication. Nevertheless, in its observations dated
11 March 1999, it requests the Committee to make sure that the same matter is not being
examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
4.2
With regard to the merits of the communication, the State party makes it clear first of all
that, in accordance with previous decisions of the Committee,1 it in no way opposes the absolute
nature of article 3. It adds, however, that while the author’s fears must be analysed in the light of
the general situation prevailing in the country, it must also be determined that any risk is
personal, real and foreseeable.
4.3
The State party points out that the author made many contradictory statements during
questioning on vital points of his story. For example, the author did not mention the events of
18 June 1997 during his first hearing and even specified that he had had no problem with the
new Congolese authorities prior to 6 October 1997. Moreover, the circumstances surrounding
his departure from Kinshasa for Bas-Zaire were brought up only during the second hearing. He
also contradicted himself with regard to the person who had helped him leave the hospital; the
first time he had said it was a nurse and the second time that it was a doctor. Also, while at the
second hearing he was able initially to give the doctor’s name and approximate address, a little
later he could no longer remember. The State party notes that the author has provided no
explanation for these contradictions in his communication.
4.4
Furthermore, the State party questions the plausibility of certain facts introduced by the
author only towards the end of the proceedings, for no apparent reason other than to strengthen
his argument for asylum. In particular, he suggested that working for Hyochade implied that he
had to be a member of the People’s Revolution Movement (MPR - the single party during
President Mobutu’s regime). As to reasons for his arrest in October 1997, it was only at the end
of the proceedings that he mentioned treason, complicity in murder and embezzlement.
4.5
In the view of the State party, some parts of the author’s story are completely
implausible, such as the claim that, during his escape, he was wheeled out of the hospital on a