CAT/C/46/D/350/2008
Factual background
2.1
The complainant is originally from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
always lived in Kinshasa, where he was an active member of a movement called the
Groupe des jeunes chrétiens pour le changement (Young Christians’ Movement for
Change) (GJCC). In May 2004, he gave a series of talks to sensitize young people to the
upcoming presidential elections, during which he informed them that President Joseph
Kabila was not of Congolese origin. On 15 July 2004, he was arrested for this reason and
his wife was allegedly raped. He was interrogated three days later and the same evening
was flown to a prison in Katanga (a region close to the border with Zambia). He managed
to escape from the prison on 13 September 2004, thanks to the help of an officer, and left
the country four days later. He subsequently learned through his wife that he was being
sought by the Congolese authorities.
2.2
The complainant flew to Switzerland on 20 September 2004 and filed an asylum
application the same day. On 17 September 2006, the Swiss Red Cross asked if he would
agree to share his experiences with the Swiss television channel Télévision Suisse
Romande (TSR) for a report on coercive measures in the canton of Zurich timed to coincide
with the referendum concerning new laws on asylum and foreign nationals due to take
place on 26 September 2006. The complainant agreed to be interviewed without his face
obscured because the reporters told him that the programme would air in Switzerland only.
Shortly after the programme was broadcast, he received a number of phone calls from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo because the TSR news programme was carried on TV5,
a channel which also aired in that country. In the meantime, the complainant’s wife had fled
to Zimbabwe with their daughter. Both were granted refugee status in December 2007 and
are now under the protection of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR).
2.3
The complainant developed mental health problems as a result of his experiences in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the protracted asylum process and the situation of
his wife, who is now a refugee in Zimbabwe, along with their daughter. Persistent
nightmares and severe anxiety resulted in an emergency consultation at the outpatient
psychiatric clinic of the university hospital in Lausanne (CHUV) on 17 February 2005. The
complainant’s mental health problems also led to regular consultations with two
practitioners at the Bülach outpatient psychiatric centre attached to the Psychiatrie-Zentrum
Hard clinic. A medical report issued at the complainant’s request by the psychiatric clinic
of the university hospital in Zurich on 22 January 2009 stated that the complainant’s
symptoms were consistent with his account of the treatment he allegedly suffered in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and concluded that, from a clinical point of view, there
was no doubt that the complainant had experienced considerable traumatic stress. The
report gave a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
2.4
On 20 September 2004, upon arrival in Switzerland, the complainant filed an asylum
application while in the transit zone of Zurich airport. In a decision dated 30 September
2004, the Federal Office for Migration refused to authorize his entry to Switzerland on the
grounds that his account of the alleged facts was not plausible. On 26 October 2004, the
Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission (since replaced by the Federal Administrative Court)
declared the complainant’s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that the advance required as
surety for procedural costs had not been deposited by the statutory deadline. On 11 January
2005, the complainant requested a review of the decision on his case. The Federal Office
for Migration rejected his request on 27 January 2005. An appeal against this decision was
declared inadmissible by the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission on 9 March 2005 on the
grounds of late payment of the required deposit to cover costs. On 17 March 2005 the
complainant filed a new application with the Federal Office for Migration, which was
rejected on 24 March 2005. The complainant lodged an appeal against this decision, and on
GE.11-43878
3