CAT/C/37/D/262/2005
Page 3
Factual background
2.1. The complainant’s husband stood in local elections in Belarus in 1995 and in 2000. In a
letter to the editor of a newspaper, he criticised the president of the country. He was then
interrogated several times by the office of security and the police. He was also attacked by
four unknown men in April 2000. The police advised him to cease his political activities. He
left Minsk and stayed with relatives from July 2000 to June 2001. He left the country on 7
June 2001 and went to Belgium where he applied for asylum. His application was rejected
and he travelled to Switzerland on 18 December 2002. In the meantime, the complainant
herself remained behind in Belarus and was frequently interrogated about her husband’s
whereabouts. On 12 September 2002, her passport was taken away from her. She left the
country on 16 December 2002 and joined her husband in Switzerland on 18 December 2002.
2.2 The complainant, together with her husband, applied for asylum in Switzerland on 19
December 2002. Both based their claims on the alleged political persecution of the husband
by the Belorussian authorities. These claims were not considered to be credible by the Swiss
Federal Office for Refugees (BFF) which considered that the documents submitted by the
claimants were not genuine. Consequently, the applications were rejected on 14 August 2003
and the complainant and her husband were ordered to leave the country by 9 October 2003.
2.3 On 11 September 2003, the complainant and her husband appealed to the Swiss
Asylum Review Board (ARK). The ARK rejected the appeal on 15 September 2004. The
complainant requested a revision of the decision on 11 October 2004, in which she mentioned
for the first time that she had suffered sexual abuses by members of the police (“Miliz”). She
urged the Swiss authorities to reconsider her asylum application on its own right, rather than
as part of her husband’s claims, explaining that they now lived separately. It was only after
the couple’s arrival in Switzerland that the complainant informed her husband of the sexual
abuses. He reacted with insults and humiliating remarks and forbade her to mention the
sexual abuses to the Swiss authorities. By letter dated 15 October 2004, the ARK requested
further information on the request for revision because the reasons invoked for the revision of
the appeal decision were not sufficient. On 21 October 2004, the complainant elaborated on
the grounds for revision. She now claimed that prior to her departure from Belarus, she had
been interrogated and raped by three officers of the police who wanted information about the
whereabouts of her husband. These officers also beat her and penetrated her with objects. A
subsequent medical examination in a hospital confirmed bruises and damage to her sexual
organs. The complainant was then treated medically and could not return to her workplace for
more than three weeks.
2.4 Following this incident, the complainant complained to the officer-in-charge of the
department whose officials had sexually abused her. Thereafter, she received threats from
several officers of this department. One officer followed her home, asking her to withdraw
her complaint. There were constant night visits to her home and searches by the police. One
day, the same officers who had previously raped her kidnapped her in front of her office, and
drove her to an isolated place where she was raped again. The officers threatened to mutilate
and kill her. On 12 September 2002, she was called to the police offices, where her passport
was taken away. Following these events, she became depressed and went into hiding. The
threats and intimidations, coupled with the previous sexual abuses, motivated her flight from
Belarus.