CAT/C/21/D/101/1997
page 5
party explains that the author can at any time lodge a new application for
re-examination of his case to the Aliens Appeal Board, based on new factual
circumstances. Finally, the State party contends that the communication is
inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.
4.6. As to merits of the communication, the State party refers to the
Committee’s jurisprudence in the cases of Mutombo v. Switzerland 1 and
Ernest Gorki Tania Paez v. Sweden, 2 and the criteria established by the
Committee: 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.
4.7. The State party reiterates that when determining whether article 3 of
the Convention applies, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the
general situation of human rights in the receiving country, although the
existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights is not in itself determinative; (b) the personal risk of the
individual concerned of being subjected to torture in the country to which he
would be returned; and (c) the risk of the individual being subjected to
torture if returned must be a foreseeable and necessary consequence. The
State party recalls that the mere possibility that a person will be subjected
to torture in his or her country of origin is not sufficient to prohibit his
or her return on the ground of incompatibility with article 3 of the
Convention.
4.8. The State party states that it is aware of the serious human rights
problems occurring in Turkey, in particular in the south-eastern part of the
country. It is a well-known fact that arbitrary arrests, demolitions of whole
villages and torture are used in the fight against Kurdish separatists.
However, in the State party’s view, the situation is not so serious that it
constitutes a general obstacle to the deportation of Turkish citizens of
Kurdish origin to Turkey. A large part of the population consists of persons
of Kurdish origin. While many of them live in the south-eastern part of
Turkey, others are scattered throughout other parts of the country where they
are completely integrated into the Turkish society in general. It should be
stressed that, according to current practice, if an expulsion order is carried
out with respect to a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin, he or she will not be
deported from Sweden to the Kurdish areas against his or her will, but to
Istanbul or Ankara.
4.9. As regards its assessment of whether or not the author would be
personally at risk of being subjected to torture, the State party relies on
the evaluation of the facts and evidence made by the National Immigration
Board and the Aliens Appeal Board. The facts and circumstances invoked by the
author have been examined twice by the National Immigration Board and six
times by the Aliens Appeal Board. The Swedish authorities have not considered
credible the information which the author has provided about his political
activities and about the torture and ill-treatment which he claims to have
undergone. When re-examining the facts in the second set of proceedings, the
official responsible for the case at the National Immigration Board heard the
author in person and was able to make an assessment of the reliability of the
information which he submitted orally.