CAT/C/59/D/697/2015
the complainant and his family to Belgium while his complaint was being considered by the
Committee.
1.3
On 20 August 2015, the State party informed the Committee that, in accordance with
its established procedure, the State Secretariat for Migration had requested the competent
authority not to take any steps to deport the complainant and his family, so that they are
assured of remaining in Switzerland pending consideration of their complaint by the
Committee.
1.4
The applicant and his family remain at the Oberbuchsiten centre for asylum seekers;
the complainant’s minor daughter is not attending school.
The facts as submitted by the complainant
2.1
The complainant describes himself as a prominent political figure in Rwanda. As
well as being a politician, he is also a diplomat. As a diplomatic passport holder, he has, in
the performance of his duties, always obtained Schengen visas and travelled regularly to
both Belgium and other Schengen area countries on official business. His current visa
expired in July 2016.
2.2
As a member of the liberal wing of his party, the complainant expressed his
opposition to the current President of Rwanda, Paul Kagamé, whom he accused of wanting
to amend the Constitution in order to remove the provision barring a president from seeking
a third term of office. The complainant was subsequently disowned by the President, who
dismissed him from his post as minister. Furthermore, as the complainant was seen as a
permanent threat, he was excluded from the political life of the country and from the
political affairs of his party, in particular. The complainant was subsequently appointed
ambassador to various African countries. At a special meeting of the complainant’s political
party convened on 29 March 2015 to discuss the constitutional amendment in question, the
complainant was recalled to Rwanda for questioning by his superiors. However, the
complainant’s suspicions were aroused, and he decided not to return to Rwanda.
2.3
A warrant was issued through INTERPOL at Rwanda’s request for the arrest of the
complainant on charges of embezzlement and theft.
2.4
The complainant, together with his wife and daughter, arrived in Switzerland on 3
April 2015. On 7 April 2015, the family filed an application for asylum at the registration
and processing centre in Kreuzlingen. On 9 April 2015, they were interviewed in order to
ascertain their identities and their travel route. A comparison with data stored in the Visa
Information System showed that the complainant and his family had obtained Belgian visas.
Therefore, in accordance with Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 26 June 2013 (Dublin III Regulation), the Swiss State Secretariat for
Migration requested the Belgian authorities to take charge of the complainant and his
family as from 29 April 2015. The Belgian authorities accepted the request on 5 May 2015.
2.5
On 13 May 2015, the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) declined to consider the
complainant’s asylum application and ordered that he and his wife and daughter should be
deported from Switzerland to Belgium, under article 31 a (1) (b) of the Asylum Act. 1 The
complainant appealed the decision to the Federal Administrative Court; the Court rejected
his appeal and upheld the State Secretariat’s ruling on 10 June 2015. As the Court’s
decision was final, the State Secretariat’s order became enforceable.
1
2
Article 31 a of the Asylum Act provides: “(1) As a general rule, SEM shall not entertain an asylum
application if the asylum seeker: … (b) is able to travel to a third country that is responsible under an
international agreement for conducting the asylum and removal procedures”.
GE.17-01261