CAT/C/36/D/248/2004
page 4
4.2
The State party contests the existence, in this case, of any individual communication
within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention. It recalls that, under rule 107 (a) of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, the individual must claim to be a victim of a violation by the
State party concerned of the provisions of the Convention, yet in his letter to the Committee
of 5 March 2004, the complainant makes no mention of any violation of the Convention and
adduces no arguments to substantiate any such violation. In the State party’s view, the letter is
really no more than a written authorization for the Federal Office for Civil Protection to
“represent [him], write to [him] and correspond with all Swiss authorities in matters relating to
[his] asylum”.
4.3
The State party argues that it does not know in what respect the Convention might have
been violated or what arguments there might be in support of such an allegation. It claims that it
is not possible for it to comment on the complainant’s communication.
4.4
The State party therefore asks the Committee to find that the letter from the complainant
does not constitute a communication within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention. Were it
nevertheless to be found to constitute a communication, the State party asks the Committee to
rule it inadmissible on the grounds that it contains no allegation whatsoever concerning any
violation of the Convention by the State party.
Additional information provided by the complainant
5.
The complainant submitted additional information in his letters of 30 March 2004
and 8 April 2004. He was recognized as the father of Nathan Tiapele, a child born
on 11 February 2003. In a decision dated 13 February 2004, the justice of the peace in Bäretswil
(in the canton of Zurich) ordered him to pay maintenance for his son as from 1 May 2004. In the
light of this development, on 30 March 2004, he lodged a further application with the Asylum
Appeals Commission, for a review with suspensive effect. In a decision dated 8 April 2004, the
Commission ordered that his application for review should be referred to the Federal Office for
Refugees and that the expulsion decision should be suspended pending a new decision by that
body. The Committee has been informed by the Federal Office for Refugees that this application
for review was rejected on 3 June 2004. The complainant appealed against this decision to the
Asylum Appeals Commission on 3 July 2004.
State party’s comments on the additional information
6.
The additional information submitted by the complainant in his letters of 30 March 2004
and 8 April 2004 was transmitted to the State party for comment on 20 April 2004. In notes
dated 25 June 2004 and 24 January 2006, the State party maintained the conclusion reached in its
comments of 1 April 2004 on the admissibility of the complaint, namely that the communication
should be ruled inadmissible as containing no allegation whatsoever concerning any violation of
the Convention.