CAT/C/25/D/144/1999
page 5
5.7
Lastly, the author does not recall having mentioned that he had gone to work after the
soldiers had started looking for him. At that point he had been unable to take any practical steps
himself and it was his wife who had organized his escape from the country.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
6.1
Before considering any of the allegations in a communication, the Committee against
Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the
Convention. It has ascertained, as in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the
Convention it is required to do, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined
under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It also notes that all
domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party has not contested the
admissibility of the communication. It therefore considers that the communication is admissible.
As both the State party and the author have provided observations on the merits of the
communication, the Committee proceeds with the consideration of those merits.
6.2
The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the author to Chad would
violate the obligation of the State party under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a
person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in
danger of being subjected to torture.
6.3
The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, whether there are
substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture
upon return to Chad. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all
relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the determination,
however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being
subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. The existence of a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such
constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of
being subjected to torture upon his or her return to the country. There must be other grounds
indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a
consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be
subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.
6.4
The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3 which
reads: “Bearing in mind that the State party and the Committee are obliged to assess whether
there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected
to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed
on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet
the test of being highly probable” (A/53/44, annex IX, para. 6).
6.5
In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s observations to the effect that
the author’s statements concerning the alleged risks of torture are vague and general, at times
implausible, at times inaccurate and at times inconsistent.