CAT/C/42/D/324/2007
Page 4
2.8 On 9 November 2005, the complainant requested the Minister of Immigration and
Citizenship to exercise his discretion to substitute a more favourable decision under section 501J
of the Migration Act. On 31 July 2006, the Minister declined to intervene.
2.9 The complainant also received a letter from a German Public Prosecutor’s Office, attesting
that he had collaborated with the authorities by bringing to their attention details on the
organized crime what contributed to the prosecution of a number of criminals, and for that he
might be the victim of retaliation.
2.10 The complainant also applied to UNHCR, requesting a letter of support. UNHCR allegedly
replied that it sent such a letter to the Department on 15 February 2007, but the complainant
claims that he is unaware of its content.
2.11 The complainant also managed to obtain a copy of the “International obligations and
humanitarian concerns assessment” made in his case by the Department on 13 February 2006.
On the basis of that assessment, a second request was sent to the Minister to exercise his
discretion under section 501J of the Migration on 2 May 2007. The Minister rejected the request
13 June 2007. The complainant thus exhausted all available domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that in the event of his forced removal to Lebanon, there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would face torture there, in breach of his rights under
article 3 of the Convention. He points out that a number of governmental and non-governmental
reports argue that torture is common in Lebanon and that certain groups are more vulnerable to
abuses than others. He contends that as a former Phalangist and Christian who attracted the
attention of the authorities, he is at high risk of being subjected to torture in Lebanon. He claims
that he could also be tortured by Palestinian groups there due to his past activities.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1 On 29 May 2008, the State party contended that the complainant’s allegations are
inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The allegations concerning torture by Palestinian groups
are incompatible with the Convention’s provisions. If the Committee found the case admissible,
the complainant’s allegations are to be considered without merit, as they have not been supported
by evidence and the communication does not take into account recent developments in Lebanon.
4.2 After providing a Chronology of the events in the complainant’s case until his arrival in
Australia, in March 2002, the State party recalls that on 11 April 2002, he sought assistance at a
Perth police station and was taken into immigration detention. On 7 October 2002, he lodged a
Protection visa application, which was rejected on 20 August 2003 by the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) on the basis that there were serious reasons for considering
that he had committed war crimes or crimes against humanity and a serious non-political crime
outside Australia, and he was thus excluded, under article 1F (a) and (b), from protection under
the Refugee Convention. On 15 September 2003, he appealed against this decision to the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).