CAT/C/28/D/180/2001
page 6
Amnesty International medical report regarding the complainant, since it provided no objective
indications that he was subjected to torture. The complainant’s date of deportation was set
for 17 March 1999.
2.14 With regard to the Danish authorities’ rejection of the complainant’s applications for
asylum, counsel states that the medical report supports the complainant’s submissions
concerning torture, and if any doubt remained with the Danish authorities, he should have been
given the benefit of the doubt. Furthermore, the complainant applied for asylum only
eight months after his arrival in Denmark, because, not knowing about the asylum procedure
when arriving, he met a woman, and deemed it a better solution to get married. Counsel further
states that the Immigration Service should have looked at the cumulative effects of the
complainant’s arrests, instead of splitting them up. In this connection, counsel quotes UNHCR
Handbook that “Taking isolated incidents out of the context may be misleading. The cumulative
effect of the applicant’s experiences must be taken into account”. Regarding the Refugee
Board’s consideration of the medical report, counsel stresses that the Danish authorities should
have ensured a medical examination of the complainant when he applied for asylum in 1997,
instead he was not examined until 1999, upon request from his lawyer.
The complaint
3.
The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds to believe that he will once
again be subjected to torture if returned to Libya. He further claims that there exists a consistent
pattern of gross and massive violations of human rights in Libya, which according to article 3,
paragraph 2 of the Convention against Torture, are circumstances which a State party should take
into account when deciding on expulsion.
Observations by the State party
4.1
The State party submitted its observations to the Committee on 12 June 2001. The State
party contests the admissibility of the case, and argues that the removal of the complainant to
Libya would not entail any violation of article 3 of the Convention.
4.2
The State party reiterates the rationale of the decisions of the Immigration Service and
the Refugee Appeals Board. It further adds to the facts in the case, that on 14 November 1997,
the complainant was interviewed by an official from the Danish Immigration Service concerning
his application for asylum, and was assisted by an interpreter whom he stated that he understood.
4.3
Furthermore, on 22 June 1998, the Danish Immigration Service revoked the
complainant’s residence permit, since he had discontinued his cohabitation with his Danish
spouse and the conditions for a residence permit were no longer fulfilled. The Ministry of the
Interior upheld the decision on 9 November 1998.
4.4
On 16 March 1999, the Ministry of the Interior rejected the complainant’s application for
a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. However, on 25 March 1999, the Danish
Immigration Service reissued a residence permit to the complainant upon resumption of