CAT/C/71/D/802/2017
complainant’s husband was unsure as to whether the complainant had practised Falun Gong
after his departure from China. He might have stated that he was unsure simply because he
had not been present in China to personally witness the complainant’s practice of Falun Gong.
However, he clearly stated that in 2006, the complainant had visited her aunt and distributed
leaflets on Falun Gong in China.
3.3
The Tribunal also found it implausible that the complainant had been released from
detention without having been forced to sign a statement attesting to her transformation
through re-education. Nor did the Tribunal believe the complainant’s assertion that she had
been released from detention after one week, upon payment of a bond by her father. Those
elements of doubt were based on dubious suppositions by the Tribunal and should be
discounted.
3.4
Citing an article available online, 3 the Tribunal expressed surprise that the
complainant had not lost her job because of her involvement in Falun Gong. However, the
article cited does not lead to the conclusion that the Tribunal reached. The article states that
in some cases, relatives of Falun Gong adherents who have petitioned the Government of
China to stop persecuting them have been dismissed from their jobs. The complainant never
claimed to have engaged in overt political action to petition the Government of China. Rather,
she claimed to have distributed leaflets. Furthermore, according to the article cited by the
Tribunal, police officials search and plunder the homes of Falun Gong adherents, and extort
money from relatives for early release from detention, or as a fee for detention. That statement
clearly supports the complainant’s claims, but the Tribunal disregarded it.
3.5
Furthermore, the Tribunal refused to hear oral testimony from three witnesses who
had submitted written statements on the complainant’s behalf. The Tribunal also found
implausible the complainant’s explanations regarding her delay in leaving China, despite the
complainant’s statement that she had been the primary earner in the family. Moreover, by
failing to redact the complainant’s name in the decision it published online, the Federal Court
exposed her to an increased risk of torture and ill-treatment in China. The complainant would
be identified as a Falun Gong practitioner if she were removed to China. She fears reprisals
for having denounced the treatment to which Falun Gong practitioners are subjected by the
Government of China. The complainant submits that the lack of care shown by the Federal
Court towards her is outrageous.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its observations dated 27 July 2017, the State party considers that the complainant’s
claims regarding a risk of being subjected to surveillance, harassment and detention are
inadmissible ratione materiae, because the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under
article 3 of the Convention are limited to circumstances in which there are substantial grounds
for believing that the individual facing removal will be subjected to torture. The
complainant’s claim that her privacy was breached is also inadmissible ratione materiae,
because it is incompatible with the Convention.
4.2
The complainant’s claims are also inadmissible because they are manifestly illfounded. The country information that the complainant provided regarding the situation of
Falun Gong practitioners in China does not relate to her personal circumstances. She does
not suggest, or provide any information suggesting that she has a public profile as a Falun
Gong practitioner, such that she would be of interest to the authorities in China. The national
authorities did not find credible the complainant’s claim that she is a Falun Gong practitioner
or that she would practise Falun Gong upon her return to China. In November 2012, the
complainant was able to leave China as a valid holder of a Chinese passport that had been
issued to her in Jilin on 28 July 2011. As noted by the State party’s authorities, the fact that
the complainant was able to lawfully leave China with a tourist visa indicates that she was
not of adverse interest to the Government of China. Country information indicates that
perceived dissidents, including Falun Gong adherents, have difficulty obtaining passports
and leaving China.
3
GE.21-11876
The Tribunal provided the following citation: www.faluninfo.net/topic/34/.
3