CAT/C/20/D/94/1997
page 3
2.2
On 13 September 1995, the author fled to Kilinochi, further south,
a town controlled by the Tigers. In autumn 1996, when the Sri Lanka army
approached the town, the author fled to Colombo since he had been informed by
his parents that the army had come to their house on three occasions to look
for him. On 5 September 1996, he flew to Rome.
2.3
The author arrived in Switzerland on 10 September 1996.
On 30 October 1996, the Office fédéral des réfugiés (ODR) rejected his
application for recognition as a refugee. The Commission suisse de recours en
matière d'asile (CRA) rejected the author's appeal on 22 January 1997. The
author was ordered to leave Switzerland before 28 February 1997.
2.4
On 31 July 1997, the author through his attorney requested the CRA
to review its decision, arguing that the fact that the Sri Lanka army had
searched for him had been overlooked. On 8 August 1997, the CRA rejected the
application as out of time.
2.5
At the end of July, beginning of August 1997, the author received a
letter from his father, dated 10 July 1997, in which he warned him not to come
home because the security forces were looking for him. The author presented
the letter with an application to the ODR on 5 September 1997, after having
had it translated. On 10 September 1997, the ODR rejected the author's
application, considering the letter one of convenience. The author appealed
against this decision, but in a letter of 13 October 1997 he was informed by
a judge of the CRA that he considered the appeal as devoid of any chance of
success; consequently, no suspensive effect was given to the appeal and the
author was requested to pay SF 900 if he wanted the ODR to consider his case.
The author, in a letter of 29 October 1997, explained to the judge that he did
not consider the appeal to be an effective remedy, since it had no chance of
success. He further considered the requirement to pay SF 900 excessive and
constituting a deterrent, since he had no income whatsoever. The author
recalls that the Committee's rules of procedure state that a remedy need not
be exhausted where it is unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged
victim.
The complaint
3.1
It is argued that the rejection of the author's application as out of
time is in violation with article 3 of the Convention, which constitutes an
absolute prohibition on refoulement. He further argues that he only
discovered on 29 July 1997, that the officers had overlooked the fact, so that
his application should be considered in time, since it was submitted within
three months of the discovery.
3.2
The author claims that he runs a serious danger of being detained and
tortured in Sri Lanka by the security forces, should he be returned. It is
submitted that the Sri Lanka army is known for its poor human rights record.
State party's observations
4.
On 18 November 1997, the Committee, acting through its Special
Rapporteur for New Communications, transmitted the communication to the State
party for comments and requested the State party not to expel the author while
his communication was under consideration by the Committee.