CAT/C/36/D/248/2004
page 3
Summary of the facts
2.1
The complainant says he was a supporter of the União Nacional para a Independência
Total de Angola (UNITA) and worked for a government agency, where he was spying for
UNITA. In January 1993, he warned that the Government was planning to exterminate everyone
belonging to the Bakongo ethnic minority. His father, who was also a UNITA supporter, and his
mother were killed shortly afterwards. His sister and her husband were reported missing.
Shortly afterwards, the complainant left Luanda and went into hiding outside the capital. He was
finally arrested in 1998, but managed to escape and left the country on 5 June 2000.
2.2
The complainant arrived in Europe on 12 June 2000 and applied for asylum in
Switzerland on 13 June 2000. In a decision dated 10 July 2003, the Federal Office for Refugees
rejected his application. According to that Office, the Angolan Government had enacted an
amnesty law on 4 April 2002 and the situation in the country had improved: the complainant
therefore no longer had any reason to fear persecution because he had spied for UNITA in a
government agency. The amnesty applied to UNITA supporters and members of the Angolan
army. The ceasefire between UNITA and the Angolan army had held since the end of the civil
war and the situation of former UNITA supporters had improved considerably. Under the
circumstances, the Federal Office for Refugees deemed it unnecessary to respond to the
complainant’s allegations, which contained numerous inconsistencies.
2.3
The Federal Office for Refugees argues that, according to demobilized former UNITA
fighters, some of whom have since joined the Angolan army, the complainant is unlikely to face
persecution by the State authorities for things he did more than 10 years ago. The Office also
points out that the complainant did not occupy an important position in UNITA.
2.4
On 11 August 2003 the complainant appealed against the decision of the Federal Office
for Refugees. On 7 January 2004, the Asylum Appeals Commission rejected his appeal.
The Commission considered that he had not proved that his return to Angola would place him
in danger, and therefore upheld the Office’s decision ordering his expulsion. By letter
of 13 January 2004, the Federal Office for Refugees set 9 March 2004 as the date by which he
had to leave Switzerland.
The complaint
3.
The complainant asserts that he would be at risk of being tortured for betraying the
Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola (MPLA) if he was returned to Angola, in violation
of article 3 of the Convention.
State party’s observations on the admissibility of the complaint
4.1
By note verbale of 1 April 2004, the State party argued that the complainant’s application
failed to meet the minimum conditions established by rule 107 (a) of the Committee’s rules of
procedure; it also challenged the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the
complainant’s allegations had not been substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.