CAT/C/20/D/90/1997
page 5
5.11 In the present case, the author had not shown that returning to his
country of origin would put him in any specific danger. He was young and in
good health, and according to his own statements would be able to re-establish
an existence in Luanda since he had already lived there and could count on his
family for support.
5.12 Even if the Committee concluded that the human rights situation in
Angola, including the unfortunate position that the author claimed for his
ethnic minority, was serious and gave rise to concern, such a finding would
not, in the absence of supplementary indications, be sufficient to establish
that the author was in personal danger of being tortured.
5.13 In the light of the foregoing, the State party considered that returning
the author to Angola would not constitute a violation of the Convention.
Author's comments
6.
By letter dated 17 March 1998, the author indicates that the situation
in Angola is very unstable and that the country is still at war. If he were
expelled, he would thus be in physical danger.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
7.
Before considering any claims contained in the communication, the
Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is
required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the
same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, and finds there are no further
obstacles to its declaring the communication admissible. Since the State
party and the author have both made comments regarding the substance of the
communication, the Committee will proceed to consider the communication on its
merits.
8.1
The Committee must decide whether sending the author back to Angola
would violate Switzerland's obligation under article 3 of the Convention not
to expel or return (refouler) an individual to another State if there are
substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being
subjected to torture.
8.2
The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, if there
are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of
being tortured if sent back to Angola. To do so, it must take account of all
relevant considerations as called for by article 3, paragraph 2, including the
existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights. The aim, however, is to determine whether the individual
concerned would personally risk torture in the country to which he or she
would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross,
flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such
constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the particular person
would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that
country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual