CAT/C/22/D/103/1998
page 4
The complaint
3.1
In view of the fact that S.M.R. has previously been imprisoned and
tortured, and that her recent political activities have become known to the
Iranian Government, the authors claim that there exist substantial grounds for
believing that she, her husband and their children would be subjected to
torture if they were returned to Iran. Their forced return would therefore
constitute a violation by Sweden of the Convention.
3.2
The authors draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that neither
the National Immigration Board nor the Aliens Appeal Board has questioned that
S.M.R. had been active in the Mujahedin organization and that she had
previously been imprisoned and tortured.
Observations by the State party
4.1
By its submission of 21 April 1998, the State party informed the
Committee that, following the Committee’s request under rule 108, paragraph 9,
of its rules of procedure, the National Immigration Board had decided to stay
the expulsion order against the authors while their communication is under
consideration by the Committee.
4.2
The State party explained the domestic procedure applicable to the
determination of refugee status. It stressed that, in accordance with the
Aliens Act, an alien may never be sent to a country where there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital
or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, nor to a country where he/she is not
protected from being sent on to a country where he/she would be in such
danger. An alien who is refused entry can reapply for a residence permit if
the application is based on circumstances which have not previously been
examined in the case and if either the alien is entitled to asylum in Sweden
or if it will otherwise be in conflict with humanitarian requirements to
enforce the decision on refusal of entry or expulsion.
4.5
Regarding the admissibility of the communication, the State party
submits that it is not aware of the same matter having been presented to
another international instance of investigation or settlement. The State
party explains that the authors can at any time file a new application for
re-examination of their case with the Aliens Appeal Board, based on new
factual circumstances. Finally, the State party contends that, with reference
to what it says concerning the merits of the case, the communication should be
considered inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
4.6
As to the merits of the communication, the State party refers to the
Committee’s jurisprudence in the cases of Mutombo v. Switzerland 1 and
Tapia Paez v. Sweden 2, and the criteria established by the Committee with
respect to article 3 of the Convention, first, that a person must personally
be at risk of being subjected to torture and, second, that such torture must
be a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the return of the person to his
or her country.