CAT/C/67/D/828/2017
considered the complainant’s arguments and states that the complaint does not include any
new information that might invalidate the asylum authorities’ decisions.
4.2
On the facts and the procedure, the State party indicated that, on 24, 25 and 27 April
2017 and 3 May 2017, the complainant applied to the European Court of Human Rights for
the implementation of interim measures. This request was rejected and the Court invited the
complainant to indicate whether he wished to maintain his claims and, if so, to complete the
application form.2
4.3
On 26 May 2017, on the basis of the letter of 25 May 2017 signed by General
Munene, the complainant requested a review of his case. By an interlocutory decision of 31
May 2017, the State Secretariat for Migration set 15 June 2017 as the deadline for payment
of an advance on costs of 600 Swiss francs. On 8 June 2017, the complainant lodged an
appeal against that decision, which was declared inadmissible by the Federal
Administrative Court on 12 June 2017 on the grounds that, with certain exceptions,
interlocutory decisions delivered by the State Secretariat can only be challenged by means
of an appeal against a final decision. The State party indicates that, on the same day, after
meeting with a representative of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the
complainant stated that he was prepared to accept assisted voluntary return to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. On 16 June 2017, after being registered for the assisted
voluntary return programme, the complainant returned to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
4.4
Referring to an email of 19 June 2017 from the claimant’s counsel sent to the
Committee, which states that the complainant had not been heard from for three days and
that both his relatives and General Munene feared that he was being subjected to torture in
a cell, the State party maintains that the IOM representative who was following the case
confirmed, by email of 19 June 2017, that the complainant had arrived in Kinshasa and had
not encountered any problems during transit in Brussels, where he had been assisted by
IOM. He specified that, on the complainant’s arrival in Kinshasa, his passport had been
retained by the immigration authorities because of the false Schengen visa in it, as was to
be expected. The authorities had provided him with a copy of the pages of his passport
indicating his identity so that he could apply for a new passport. The IOM representative
added that the complainant had been transported by a driver in an official IOM vehicle. On
his own request, the applicant had not been taken to his home, but had called his brother,
who had met him in a commercial neighbourhood, from where they had left together. This
email, which includes photographs of the complainant and the IOM driver, states that the
complainant had given the driver a phone number and had told him that he would report to
the IOM office in Kinshasa to access reintegration support in the coming days. In the email,
the IOM representative confirms that there was no evidence of “sinister machinations, black
cars or secret police coming to kidnap him”. In respect of the passport, he said that the
immigration authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had exercised their right
to withdraw a passport containing counterfeit documents – which had also been identified
as such by the Swiss police.
4.5
On 20 June 2017, the State Secretariat for Migration had struck from the register the
application for review of 26 May 2017, on the grounds that it had become moot following
the complainant’s voluntary return to his country. On 22 June 2017, the complainant lodged
an appeal, arguing that he had been the victim of a defect of consent, in that the officials
responsible for preparing his departure, in particular the IOM representative, had given him
a choice between his departure from Switzerland – which was incorrectly termed
“voluntary” – with 3,000 Swiss francs to assist with his return, or his administrative
detention for the purposes of refoulement.
4.6
On 4 July 2017, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the appeal. It found that
the State Secretariat for Migration had based its decision on the grounds of both the implicit
withdrawal of the application for review and the return to the country of origin. It appears
from the case file that the complainant was neither detained for the purpose of his
2
GE.19-14950
The complainant indicates that he had abandoned the proceedings before the Court in order to
continue with the proceedings before the Committee.
3