CAT/C/70/D/819/2017
China would expose her to the risk of being subjected to torture, thus constituting a violation
of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.1 The State party recalls that, on
13 February 2017, the European Court of Human Rights sent the author a decision informing
her of its rejection of her request for interim measures to suspend her removal, explicitly
mentioning that the Court would therefore not intervene to prevent the execution of her
removal. According to the second part of that decision, the Court, sitting in a single-judge
formation, declared the author’s complaints inadmissible since they did not meet the
conditions of admissibility under articles 34 and 35 of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
4.2
The State party notes that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights was
not based solely on procedural questions, but also on substantive grounds, which indicates
that sufficient consideration was given to the merits of the case. Accordingly, it must be
considered that the Court has examined the complainant’s application within the meaning of
article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention against Torture.2
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility
5.1
On 25 May 2018, the complainant reiterated the risk that she would face if she were
to be returned to China. She added that a believer from the same Swiss Church that she
belonged to, who had returned to China in January 2017, had been arrested on arrival and
sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment.
5.2
The complainant reiterates that she is a true believer and that the Swiss local
authorities did not pay attention to the evidence submitted, instead using irrelevant cases to
support the correctness of the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration.3
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must
decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention.
6.2
The Committee takes note of the State party’s objection that the complaint should be
declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention because the same matter has
already been examined by the European Court of Human Rights.
6.3
The Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence that it will not consider any
complaint from an individual under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention unless it has
ascertained that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement. 4 The Committee considers that a
complaint has been, and is being, examined by another procedure of international
investigation or settlement if the examination of a complaint by another procedure relates or
is related to the “same matter” within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a), that is, the same parties,
the same facts and the same substantive rights.5
6.4
The Committee observes that the complainant lodged an application concerning the
same events with the European Court of Human Rights and that complaint included claims
based on article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture). It
1
2
3
4
5
The State party refers to M.T. v. Sweden (CAT/C/55/D/642/2014), para. 8.5.
The State party refers to M.T. v. Sweden, para. 8.5; see also U. v. Sweden (CAT/C/56/D/643/2014),
para. 6.4; and E.E. v. Russian Federation (CAT/C/50/D/479/2011), para. 8.4.
The complainant attaches information regarding a presentation by the Coordination des Associations
et Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience, which, on 1 March 2018, organized an event on the
denial of religious freedom in China, including persecution of members of Quannengshen. She also
attaches documents describing three similar cases and declarations from non-governmental
organizations urging the authorities of France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands and
Switzerland to grant political asylum to Chinese citizens who have been persecuted because of their
religious beliefs in China.
See, for example, A.R.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/38/D/305/2006), para. 6.1; and M.T. v. Sweden, para. 8.3.
See, for example, A.A. v. Azerbaijan (CAT/C/35/D/247/2004), para. 6.8; E.E. v. Russian Federation,
para. 8.4; and M.T. v. Sweden, para. 8.3.
3