CAT/C/57/D/593/2014
protection.1 On 6 November 2014, the complainants provided their comments on the State
party’s request to lift interim measures. Having considered both parties’ submissions, the
Committee decided to lift its request for interim measures of protection.
Factual background
2.1
In Romania, the complainants used to own a private business. In 2001, their business
faced “serious financial obstacles”. As a result, the complainants, as owners of the business,
were sued by their creditors, principally by someone called M.C. The complainants claim
that M.C. is an influential person who had connections with “political opposition parties”.
The complainants claim that they received threats from M.C. and, as a result of this
pressure, V.Z. attempted suicide in February 2002.2 He was admitted to a psychiatric
hospital for six months, at which time he was interrogated by police officers concerning his
debt to M.C.
2.2
The complainants further submit that their company went bankrupt in February
2002. Due to this bankruptcy and threats from M.C., they had to leave their home; I.M. and
her son went to stay with her mother, and V.Z. moved in with his sister. Criminal
investigations against the complainants were initiated in March 2002 for allegations of
fraud and they were detained for five days. I.M. claims that, during the detention, she was
subjected to inhuman conditions, such as overcrowded detention cells with no windows,
and had no access to counsel or family. She also claims that she was coerced into signing a
confession on behalf of her husband, as he was in state of shock and could not understand
what was happening. The complainants further claim that their son was bullied by the
principal of his school, who happened to be a colleague of M.C.3
2.3
In 2003, M.C. started blackmailing the mother of I.M., who owned a store at which
I.M. worked. At some point in October 2003, the mother’s store was attacked and damaged,
while I.S. was subject to a bodily injury.4 She claims that M.C. was behind this attack, as he
was not happy about not being able to recover his money from the complainants. The
complainants filed a police complaint,5 but no perpetrator was identified.
2.4
In 2004, the complainant’s son came home crying after having been taken into a car
by unknown persons. At that point, I.M. decided to seek asylum in Canada, together with
her mother and son.6 They arrived in Canada in 2004 and applied for protection. I.M., her
son and her mother were granted asylum in Canada in May 2005.7 V.Z. remained in
Romania, as the complainants were not officially married and he could not obtain a visa.
2.5
The complainants further submit that, in 2006, they were convicted of fraud by the
tribunal of Galati (in Romania) and sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment. They also claim
that the course of the trial was affected by M.C., who was well connected with the police,
prosecution and “political circles”. I.M. claims the judge was corrupt.8 In August 2006, I.M.
returned to Romania from Canada, as V.Z. was having health issues. The complainants got
married in Romania, planning to apply for family reunification in Canada. During her stay
in Romania, I.M. was not subjected to harassment but was confined to her home.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
The State party claims, inter alia, that the complainants were not able to show that they are at risk of
suffering “irreparable damage” if returned to Romania.
The complainants do not provide the exact date and details of this incident.
The complainants provide no further details on this.
The specific nature of the property damage, as well as bodily injuries, is not provided.
A copy of the complaint is not provided.
The complainant does not explain why she chose Canada in which to seek asylum.
The complainants provide no information on asylum proceedings in Canada.
This claim is not supported by any evidence.