CAT/C/70/D/819/2017
believer and promised he would see to it that his wife no longer talked about her former faith.
The complainant’s aunt and uncle convinced her to leave China as soon as possible.
2.2
The complainant remained in hiding for five months with a friend from her religious
community, while another friend confirmed that her name was not on any police lists. On 25
October 2014, she received her passport from the provincial authority. On 31 October 2014,
the police searched her father’s apartment, without a warrant, but found nothing incriminating.
2.3
On 16 April 2015, the complainant arrived in Switzerland where, two months later,
she applied for asylum. In July 2015, she settled in the canton of Aargau. In September 2015,
she learned through a relative that the police had found out that she had fled to Switzerland
and had searched her father’s apartment once again, this time with a warrant, looking for
evidence of her faith. They ordered her father to persuade her to come back, threatening that,
if he knew her whereabouts and did not reveal them, he would be prosecuted for harbouring
a criminal and his house would be confiscated. Her cousin warned her not to contact her
parents directly for fear of getting them into more trouble.
2.4
On 21 November 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration of the State party concluded
that the complainant did not qualify for refugee status and rejected her application,
considering that the arguments were not sufficiently reasoned and that the description of the
facts did not meet the substantiation requirements. On 19 December 2016, the complainant
appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, arguing that the interpretation services she had
been provided with during her interaction with SEM had been inadequate and that she had
not received a translation of the appellant’s written submissions. The complainant had made
her observations in Chinese, but they had not been included in the record. She submits that
the interpreter had said, “Fräulein, I am not a Christian, I cannot translate that”. She therefore
claims that her right to be heard was infringed. In her appeal, the complainant indicates that
SEM questioned the fact that she was a genuine believer and asserts that the decision was
arbitrary. The Federal Administrative Court dismissed her appeal on 24 January 2017 in a
final decision.
2.5
On 10 October 2016, the complainant was elected as a deacon of Quannengshen in
Switzerland.
2.6
The complainant believes that not only will she be prosecuted upon her return owing
to her religious belief but, because she fled the country, her punishment will be even worse.
She states that the Government of China has stigmatized the Church as an “evil cult”.
2.7
On 6 February 2017, the complainant submitted an application and a request for
interim measures to the European Court of Human Rights. On 13 February 2017, the
complainant’s request for interim measures was rejected. The Court, sitting in a single-judge
formation, decided to declare it inadmissible on the grounds that the conditions of
admissibility provided for in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were not fulfilled: in respect of articles 3 and 5 of the
Convention, the complaints were manifestly ill-founded; and in respect of article 6, the
complaint was inadmissible due to incompatibility ratione materiae.
Complaint
3.
The complainant submits that, by forcibly returning her to China, the State party
would be breaching its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. She claims that the
authorities did not take all relevant considerations into account. Additionally, because of her
membership of Quannengshen, she would face a prison sentence of three to seven years upon
return, exposing her to persecution by the local authorities. In this regard, the complainant
points out that the Quannengshen Church is considered an evil cult and is therefore banned
by the Chinese Communist Party.
State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1
On 1 June 2017, the State party objected to the admissibility of the complaint under
article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention and maintained that the same matter had already been
examined by the European Court of Human Rights. The State party points out that the
complainant lodged an application before the Court arguing, inter alia, that her return to
2