CAT/C/23/D/121/1998
page 4
report had been spelled wrong and in any case were so common that other elements of
identification should have been used. Their positions in AAPO had been misunderstood. He
noted that the head of AAPO, Askat Weldeyes, was imprisoned for his underground activities.
He further stated that the Norwegian authorities had shown no interest in seeing his scars and
that, under article 17 of the Administration Act, it was their responsibility to seek medical
advice.
2.8
The author provided the Ministry of Justice with a copy of a medical report
of 4 February 1998 by an expert on torture victims. The report referred to the methods of torture
described by the author, who claimed that every day for about two weeks he had been beaten
with sticks, especially on the knees, head and soles of the feet, and needles were inserted under
his feet while he was laying on his back with his hands tied. The report listed a number of
physical and psychological problems that could be linked to such treatment, such as pain in the
right knee and left foot, walking difficulties, headaches, pains when urinating, depression and
sleep disorders. The doctor concluded that the author had been subjected to torture and referred
him to a rheumatologist and the psycho-social team for further examination.
2.9
The Psycho-Social Team for Refugees in Northern Norway issued a report
on 20 April 1998 indicating that based upon the interviews conducted it was clear that the author
had been subjected to torture and had been traumatized by his experiences in prison. He showed
all the signs of post-traumatic stress disorder and needed lengthy psychotherapeutic treatment.
The report was sent to the Ministry of Justice on 21 April 1998.
2.10 On 10 September 1998 the Ministry rejected the request to reconsider the case. The
Ministry refused to accept that the author’s current health problems were the result of his
experiences in Ethiopia. Since his allegations concerning his political activities were not
credible, his injuries could not be the result of such activities. On 14 September 1998 author’s
counsel sent a fax to the Ministry requesting that the decision to expel the author be postponed
on the basis of article 42 of the Administration Act, according to which if a complainant intends
to go to court or has taken his case to court, the Administration can defer execution of a decision
until a final judgement is made. On 16 September 1998 the Ministry responded that the
execution of the decision of 6 November 1997 would not be deferred in view of the fact that no
new facts had been presented.
2.11 The author argues that the Norwegian authorities repeatedly failed to investigate his
torture allegations, despite the obligation under article 17 of the Administrative Act to examine
all aspects of the case. Such failure is also contrary to articles 15 to 17 of the Aliens Act. He
notes that the Ministry rejected the request to reconsider the case without referring to the medical
reports and avoiding all comments thereon.
2.12 The author further claims that his story is consistent and disagrees with most of the
arguments presented by the Ministry in rejecting his application. For example, in its decision
of 10 September 1998 the Ministry stated that the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC) had access to most regular places of detention in Ethiopia and had reported on the
occurrence of torture and other forms of physical mistreatment of political detainees. The