CAT/C/23/D/118/1998
page 4
4.3
The State party fully endorses the CRA’s reasoning concerning the lack of credibility of
the author’s allegations. It also regards the author’s statements as far from sufficient to permit
the conclusion that there are serious grounds for believing, within the meaning of article 3,
paragraph 1, of the Convention, that the author would be exposed to the risk of torture if the
decision to return him was implemented. Finally, it submits additional observations based on
article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention.
4.4
In his communication, the author expresses his fear of being persecuted by the army or
the population because of his involvement with the MPR. Fears of persecution by the population
are not included among the relevant considerations to be taken into account by the Committee
under article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention. Under the above-cited article 3, paragraph 1,
only persecution originating from the army, where accepted, may be recognized as relevant.
4.5
The author never claimed that he had been arrested or tortured in the past. Only
on 10 May 1997 did he apparently find himself in trouble, for the first and only time, when
Kabila’s soldiers allegedly came to his home and questioned him. Yet, as the CRA mentions in
its decision, there is no serious evidence that might lead one to think that such an event ever
actually took place. Firstly, considering the minor nature of the duties which the author says he
carried out for the MPR it is hard to see what reason the AFDL soldiers might have for taking an
interest in him rather than in the party’s political leaders, who were certainly better informed
than he on the subject of the MPR’s financial resources. Secondly, on the date given by the
author the AFDL’s troops had not yet entered the capital. In addition, even if the author’s
version was accepted - thus implying that his membership of the MPR was an established fact,
which is far from being the case - that would in no way constitute a basis for fear of future
persecution. It is difficult to see why the author would be tortured on his return if he was not
mistreated during his supposed interrogation on 10 May 1997. In order to give sufficient
substance to the risk of future persecution, the author should have provided other evidence
relating to the period after his escape which would support the belief that the risk of torture was
likely to materialize.
4.6
This communication differs from those cases in which the Committee considered that the
return of the authors to Zaire would breach article 3 of the Convention. By contrast with the
communications Mutambo v. Switzerland1 and Muzonozo Paku Kisoki v. Sweden,2 the author of
the present communication has been unable to demonstrate that he left his country because of
persecution suffered in the past or that his political activities in host countries have given rise to
a greater fear that he would be tortured if he were returned to his own country. Lastly, the author
has not argued that his ethnic origins could expose him to the risk of torture.
4.7
Neither has it been shown that he was a member of the MPR. Notwithstanding his
intention to submit his membership card, which supposedly remained at his home after his
departure, it would seem that the author has made no move to recover it. Yet, according to
information from the Swiss Embassy in Kinshasa, postal links with the DRC are operating
normally. Private companies such as DHL and EMS are well established in the capital and
provide an effective postal service. Moreover, the author has in no way suggested that his family
has been exposed to persecution by the authorities. It must thus be supposed that the author has