CAT/C/65/D/801/2017
2011. The complainant further claims that the Dutch authorities did not allow him to know
who had provided them with information about him, as he was not allowed to examine the
underlying investigation report relied upon by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the
report to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that there is a consistent pattern of gross and massive
violations of human rights in Armenia and submits that on this basis alone the State party
should refrain from expelling him to Armenia. 1
3.2
He also claims that there is an ongoing investigation against him in Armenia and
that there is a real risk that he would be subjected to torture and that his safety would be
endangered by the authorities if he were returned to Armenia, where he fears being beaten
by the police again if detained. He further claims that as a government official was involved
in framing him on weapons charges, he would not receive a fair trial in Armenia. The
complainant further claims that because of the independent investigation into his
background conducted by the Dutch authorities, he has been placed in greater danger, since
the Armenian authorities would have been made aware of the fact that the complainant had
fled the country and applied for asylum abroad.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 4 August 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and merits of the complaint. The State party submits that the complaint is without merit.
4.2
The State party refers to country reports on Armenia issued by the Dutch Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. It notes that according to those reports, as well as other country reports on
Armenia, the human rights situation in the country gives some cause for concern. 2 The State
party notes that the country report issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reveals that
although membership of an opposition party in itself does not lead to problems with the
authorities, during the period under review members of the opposition and political activists
were threatened, intimidated and physically attacked in connection with the activities they
were involved in. The report also shows, however, that activists were not subjected to
violence during demonstrations but that they were confronted with negative consequences
in the aftermath. For example, problems included difficulties in finding a job. The State
party therefore submits that there is no reason to conclude that expulsion to Armenia would
in itself involve a risk of a contravention of article 3 of the Convention, as the threshold for
accepting that such a risk exists is high. The State party submits that it is therefore for the
complainant to make a persuasive case for his fear of a breach of article 3 of the
Convention on the basis of personal facts and circumstances.
4.3
The State party notes that the complainant claims that substantial grounds exist for
believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Armenia
as he claims that there is a consistent pattern of gross and massive violations of human
rights in Armenia. In that connection he states that he was threatened and physically abused
by his manager and that there may be a warrant against him. He further believes that the
person-specific investigation that the Dutch authorities carried out in Armenia to gather
information about him may have put him at risk. The State party argues that the
complainant’s account in support of his asylum application is not credible and that it has
not been satisfactorily established that the complainant would face a risk of treatment
contrary to article 3 of the Convention upon returning to Armenia.
1
2
The complainant refers to the United States Department of State country report on Armenia of 2013,
according to which the torture and ill-treatment of persons arrested by the police continued to be
reported.
The State party refers to the United States Department of State country report on Armenia of 2016;
Amnesty International report 2016/2017, The State of the World’s Human Rights, section on Armenia;
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2017, section on Armenia; and Council of Europe, “Report to
the Armenian Government on the visit to Armenia carried out by the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 5 to 15
October 2015”.
3