Bangladesh would therefore entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention
by the State party.
State party's observations on the admissibility and merits
4.1 In a submission dated 21 November 2000, the State party made its
observations on the admissibility of the case.
4.2 The State party mainly draws the attention of the Committee to the
condition of the exhaustion of internal remedies and to the fact that the
decision for removal of the petitioner acquired legal force with the decision
of the Aliens Appeals Board of 19 March 1997 and, according to Chapter 8,
Section 15 of the Swedish Aliens Act, has become statute-barred after 4
years, on 19 March 2001. By the time the Committee would consider the
present communication, the removal decision would therefore no longer be
enforceable (1).
4.3 The State party thus contends that if the petitioner would still like to
obtain a residence permit in Sweden, he should makea new application to
the Swedish Migration Board, which would have to take into account all
circumstances invoked by the petitioner regardless of whether they have
already been examined (2). The decision would also be appealable to the
Aliens Appeal Board.
4.4 The State party refers in this regard to an earlier decision taken by the
Committee (J.M.U.M. v. Sweden, Communication nr. 58/1996) in which it
decided that the communication was inadmissible for failure of exhaustion
of domestic remedies because the new application that had been filed after
that the original expulsion decision had lost legal force was still pending
before the Swedish Migration Board.
4.5 The State party also considers that the communication could be declared
inadmissible as being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, in
the sense of article 22, paragraph 2, because there is no longer any
enforceable expulsion order.
Counsel comments
5.1 In a submission dated 28 December 2000, the petitioner transmitted his
comments on the observations from the State party.
5.2 The petitioner contends that if he had made a new application for
asylum, he would have been taken into custody and the Swedish Migration
Board would have probably taken the decision to remove him to
Bangladesh, even if such a decision had been appealed. The petitioner