psychologically and that she is in danger of being arrested, all in violation of article 3
of the Convention.
The State party’s observations:
4.1
In its observations of 28 August 2000, the State party replies to the
complainant’s claims in respect of admissibility and the merits. After giving a brief
description of Swedish legislation relating to aliens, the State party describes how the
complainant, who was born in 1958, and her husband and children entered Sweden
with valid passports on 26 February 1998. They applied for asylum on
19 March 1998, claiming that they had been subjected to harassment as a result of a
bribery scandal and that they were afraid to return to Venezuela. The application was
turned down on 24 August 1998. The Aliens’ Commission rejected the appeal on
3 March 2000.
4.2
With regard to admissibility, the State party maintains that the application
should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae, for lack of proof that the complaint
is compatible with the Convention, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 2, of the
Convention. In this connection, the State party argues that the complainant claims
that, if she is returned to Venezuela, she will be arrested, tried and sentenced to
prison, without proper guarantees of a fair trial. However, according to the State
party, although the complainant has referred to article 3 of the Convention, she has
not specifically stated that she will be subjected to torture if she returns to Venezuela.
Rather, when the complainant was asked about prison conditions in Venezuela during
her interview with the National Immigration Department official, she said that the
police did not use torture. The State party maintains that the facts which may cause
the complainant to be afraid of being returned to Venezuela do not come within the
definition of torture contained in the Convention.
4.3
With regard to the merits of the complaint, the State party draws a distinction
between the general human rights situation in Venezuela and the personal situation of
the complainant if she were returned to Venezuela.
(a)
The State party affirms that, with regard to the general human rights
situation in Venezuela, although the human rights situation continues to be poor in
some respects, there are no grounds for stating that there is a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The State party recalls that,
although some reports of human rights violations in Venezuela, such as the
1999 United States State Department report on human rights in Venezuela, the 1999
Human Rights Watch report on Venezuela and the 2000 Amnesty International report,
refer to extrajudicial executions by the army and the police, as well as to an increase
in cases of torture and ill-treatment of detainees, women detainees are held in separate
prisons, where conditions are better than in prisons for men. The State party also
reports that, in February 1999, the administration of President Chávez re-established
the articles of the Constitution relating to the prohibition of arrests without a warrant
and to freedom of movement. The State party lastly recalls that such reports refer to
torture, indicating that the security forces continue to torture and ill-treat detainees
both physically and mentally. However, although the general human rights situation
in Venezuela leaves much to be desired, particularly with regard to conditions of
4