CAT/C/21/D/101/1997
page 4
of being suspected of connection to or sympathy with the PKK. If this was
found to be the case, they should not be considered as having been able to
avail themselves of an internal flight alternative.
The State party’s observations
4.1. By submission of 20 February 1998, the State party informs the Committee
that, following the Committee’s request under rule 108, paragraph 9, of its
rules of procedure, the National Immigration Board decided to stay the
expulsion order against the author while his communication is under
consideration by the Committee.
4.2. As regards the domestic procedure, the State party indicates that the
basic provisions concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in
Sweden are found in the 1989 Aliens Act, as amended on 1 January 1997. There
are normally two bodies dealing with applications for refugee status: the
National Board of Immigration and the Aliens Appeal Board. In exceptional
cases, an application can be referred to the Government by either of the
boards; the Government has no jurisdiction of its own in cases not referred to
it by either of the boards. Decisions to refer a case to the Government are
taken by the boards independently. The State party explains that the Swedish
Constitution prohibits any interference by the Government, the Parliament or
any other public authority in the decision-making of an administrative
authority in a particular case. According to the State party, the National
Board of Immigration and the Aliens Appeal Board enjoy the same independence
as a court of law in this respect.
4.3. The Aliens Act was amended on 10 January 1997. According to the amended
Act (chap. 3, sect. 4, in conjunction with sect. 3), an alien is entitled to a
residence permit if he or she has a well-founded fear of being subjected to
the death penalty or to corporal punishment or to torture or other inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. Under chapter 2, section 5 (b), of the
Act, 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,
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 to refuse entry to or expel the alien. New circumstances cannot be
assessed by the administrative authorities ex officio, but only upon
application.
4.4. Chapter 8, section 1, of the Act, which corresponds to article 3 of the
Convention against Torture, as amended, now provides that an alien, who has
been refused entry or who has been ordered expelled may never be sent to a
country where there are “reasonable grounds” (previously “firm reasons”) to
believe 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 (text in italics added), nor to a country where he is
not protected from being sent on to a country where he would be in such
danger.
4.5. As to the admissibility of the communication, the State party submits
that it is not aware of the same matter having been presented to another
international body of international investigation or settlement. The State