CAT/C/37/D/262/2005
Page 4
2.5 The complainant claims that her failure to mention the rape in her initial interview with
the BFF was due to the fact that she had considered it humiliating and an affront to her
personal dignity. Furthermore, the psychological pressure from her husband prevented her
from mentioning the sexual abuses. She explained that her husband had disappeared in
October 2004 and his whereabouts are unknown to her. Now that he had left the country, she
was however willing to provide details about the events described above and a medical
certificate.
2.6 In its decision of 1 December 2004, the ARK acknowledged that in principle, rape was
a relevant factor to be considered in the asylum procedure, even when reported belatedly, and
that there may be psychological reasons for victims not to mention it in the first interview.
However, the complainant’s claims did not appear plausible to the ARK, since, according to
it, the complainant had neither substantiated nor proven psychological obstacles to at least
mentioning the rape in the initial interview. Nor had her story or her behaviour been
otherwise convincing. The ARK also expressed suspicion about the “sudden ability of the
complainant to provide details about the alleged rape”. It was unconvinced that the
complainant would be threatened with persecution or inhuman treatment upon return, and
concluded that there were no legal obstacles to her return to Belarus.
2.7 On 7 December 2005, the complainant sent to the ARK a medical report, demonstrating
that she had suffered sexual abuses before she left Belarus. By letter of 14 December 2005,
the ARK replied that her case was closed. She wrote again to the ARK on 7 January 2005
explaining why she disagreed with its decision of 1 December 2004. She was informed on 11
January 2005 that she would be removed from the country on 20 January 2005.
The complaint
3.
The complainant submits that, from the documents submitted by the complainant, it is
clear that she justifiably fears persecution by the police in Belarus. She does not invoke
specific provisions of the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, but her complaint appears to raise issues under article 3.
State party’s submissions on the admissibility of the communication
4.1 By note verbale of 25 February 2005, the State party challenges the admissibility of the
complaint. It submits that the complainant’s letter dated 12 January 2005 cannot be
considered to be a complaint within the meaning of article 22 of the Convention. It recalls
that under Rule 107, paragraph a, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the complainant
must claim to be a victim of a violation by the State party concerned of the provisions of the
Convention. Under paragraph b, the Committee shall ascertain that the complaint is not an
abuse of the Committee’s process or manifestly unfounded. It notes that the complainant
merely forwards the documents concerning her asylum application and requests the
Committee “to render me the help and assistance in […] the decision of my question of
protection”, rather than identifying any error on the part of the national authorities when
confirming the removal decision. It argues that the complainant failed to demonstrate that she
would face a risk of torture upon her return to Belarus. In the absence of any claim of a
violation, the State party considers it impossible to comment on the complainant’s
submission.