CAT/C/37/D/279/2005**
Page 3
Factual background2
2.1 Before the first named complainant’s arrival in Sweden on 17 October 2002, she lived
in Kigali. She and her brother had become members of the PDR-Ubuyanja party sometime
between February and May 2002. In April 2002, they attended a meeting of the party.
Following this meeting, the leaders of this party, Mr. Bizimungu and Mr. Ntakirutinka, were
arrested. In May 2002, the first named complainant and her brother were arrested and she was
imprisoned in a container in Remera in Kigali, with six other women. She has not seen her
brother since. She was interrogated about her own involvement and that of her brother’s in
the PDR-Ubuyanja party. She was repeatedly raped, under the threat of execution, and
became pregnant with her son K. M., the second named complainant, who was born in
Sweden.
2.2 In October 2002, a soldier helped her escape and took her to a religious order, which
helped her organise her flight to Sweden. On 17 October 2002, she arrived in Sweden and
requested asylum. On 23 March 2004, her request was denied by the Migration Board on
grounds of lack of credibility and developments in Rwanda following the elections of 2003.In
2003, her son was born. On 29 June 2005, the Migration Board’s decision was confirmed on
appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board. On 7 September 2005, the Aliens Appeals Board denied
a new application.
The complaint
3.1 The first named complainant claims that if returned to Rwanda, she will be immediately
detained and tortured by the Rwandan Directory of Military Intelligence (DMI), on account
of her membership of the PDR-Ubuyanja party. She would be raped again and interrogated in
order to make her reveal how she escaped. She fears that she and her son could even be killed.
3.2 She further claims that she will be tried by the Gacaca courts, which were set up by the
Government to avenge the genocide of 1994. She claims to be one of the 760,000 Hutus who
are due to be tried by these courts, in particular for her alleged involvement in a massacre at
Kigali Hospital.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 On 19 June 2006, the State party provided its submission on the admissibility and the
merits. It submits that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, and sets out the
relevant provisions of the Aliens Act, pointing out that several provisions reflect the same
principle as that laid down in article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The national authority
conducting the asylum interview is naturally in a good position to assess the information
submitted by asylum seekers. On 9 November 2005, temporary amendments were enacted to
the 1989 Aliens Act. On 15 November 2005, these amendments entered into force and were
to remain in force until the entry into force of a new Aliens Act on 31 March 2006. The
temporary amendments introduced additional legal grounds for granting a residence permit
with respect to aliens against whom a final refusal-of-entry or expulsion order has been
issued. According to the new Chapter 2, section 5 b of the Aliens Act, if new circumstances
come to light concerning enforcement of a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order that has
2
The complainants do not describe the facts in detail themselves: the following account is a
summary of the facts as described by the first named complainant to the Swedish immigration
authorities and set out in the immigration authorities’ decisions.