United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr... Page 3 of 6
The complaint
3.1 The petitioner contends that his deportation to Algeria would violate article 3 of the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
The petitioner argues that there are substantive grounds for believing that he would be in
danger of being subjected to torture when deported to Algeria, because he has been perceived
as an FIS sympathiser.
3.2 The petitioner claims that, upon his return, he would be targeted as a draft-evader and antiGovernment opinions would automatically be attributed to him for avoiding military service.
3.3 The petitioner claims further that upon his return he would be arrested and tortured in
connection with the court verdict of 1996. It is submitted that the judgement is consistent with
counsel's knowledge of penalties for desertion in connection with perceived affiliation with the
Islamists.
3.4 The petitioner claims that, upon his return, he will be interviewed at the airport about his
time spent outside Algeria and his activities. He may be questioned on whether he applied for
refugee status outside Algeria. The petitioner quotes a British newspaper report of June 1997
on the death of a refused asylum-seeker deported to Algeria.
3.5 The petitioner claims that Algeria is committing gross violations of human rights, which
take place not only with total immunity, but are also sanctioned at the highest level. Recalling
events that have occurred in Algeria since 1992, he further claims that there is a customary
disregard by Algeria of its obligations under international human rights treaties.
3.6 The petitioner claims that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted.
Notwithstanding the outstanding response from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs and pursuant to the Migration Act, the alleged victim could be deported from Australia
as soon as reasonably practical.
State party's observations on admissibility and merits
4.1 In its reply of 14 November 2000, the State party submits that the application is
inadmissible, because it lacks the minimum substantiation as required by article 22 of the
Convention.
4.2 Should the Committee find that the application is admissible, the State party submits that it
lacks merit, as grounds for believing that the alleged victim would be subject to torture upon
his return to Algeria are neither substantial, personal nor present.
4.3 While the State party acknowledges the seriousness of the human rights situation in
Algeria, it submits that recent reports indicate that the situation has improved. The State party
refers to the adoption of the Civil Harmony Law in 1999 and the agreement of the Algerian
Ministry of the Interior to investigate cases of disappearances. The State party submits that
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United States Department of State
reported ad idem that the number of disappearances, arrests, torture, and extrajudicial killings
carried out by agents of Algeria declined in 1999. The State party notes that Algeria acceded
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture,
with the declaration under articles 21 and 22, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples'
Rights.
4.4 The State party submits that there is no substantial reason for believing that the petitioner
will be subjected to torture upon his return to Algeria resulting from his claimed involvement
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/ef5cf4f105d527a1c1256c62005...
26.02.2008