CAT/C/43/D/348/2008
the rebels. His father was killed while attempting to defend him. During his captivity the
complainant was forced to take part in plundering and to work in the fields for the rebels.
2.3
One day, he was able to steal some money and escape. He crossed the border and
returned to Para. The village’s inhabitants reportedly attacked him, reproaching him for
helping the rebels by taking part in the pillaging and destruction of their property and
accusing him of being a rebel himself. They wanted to kill him, and reported him to the
loyalist soldiers stationed in the village. On 24 December 2004 the village chief issued an
order requesting the complainant to leave the village, barring which he would be
prosecuted. The complainant therefore fled, walking 100 kilometres before being picked up
by a vehicle and continuing on to San Pedro. There, a person helped him find a boat to
leave the country. He arrived in Switzerland, where he applied for asylum on 31 March
2005.
2.4
On 6 May 2005 the Federal Office for Migration (ODM) rejected his asylum
request, as the persecution to which the complainant had allegedly been subjected by
Liberian rebels came at the hands of third parties who moreover were foreigners, and the
Ivorian authorities could not be held responsible. Furthermore, ODM challenged the
complainant’s allegations. Specifically, it considered it unlikely that villagers who were
present when the complainant was abducted in January 2003 would accuse him of working
for the rebels and chase him out of the village while reporting him to the armed forces
stationed there. As for the risk of persecution by the army, ODM considered the risk low,
considering that the complainant was young, was not politically active and was unknown to
the authorities. ODM concluded that, although a minor, the complainant could be sent back
to Côte d’Ivoire, considering the fact that since his father’s death he had been able to take
care of himself, had arranged for travel to Switzerland, spoke several languages and was
apparently independent and mature for his age.
2.5
On 16 June 2008 the complainant’s appeal was rejected by the Federal
Administrative Tribunal, which agreed with the assessment made by ODM. Furthermore,
the Tribunal noted that the complainant could name administrative units only around Agou,
a town that he claimed to have left at the age of 2, but was unable to name any near Para,
where he had supposedly spent most of his life. It thus concluded that the complainant had
apparently not lived in the south-west of the country. It added that Côte d’Ivoire was not
generally in a situation of war, civil war or generalized violence throughout its territory,
and consequently observed that the complainant could be sent back to Abidjan.
The complaint
3.
The complainant believes that he will be tortured or subjected to inhuman or
degrading treatment by Ivorian soldiers, Liberian rebels or the inhabitants of Para, in
violation of article 3 of the Convention.
State party’s observations on admissibility and on the merits
4.1
On 29 January 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the merits. It
maintains that the complainant does not provide any new evidence calling into question the
decisions made by the domestic bodies.
4.2
The State party maintains that Côte d’Ivoire is not in a situation of generalized
violence throughout its territory and that the crisis that separated the country into two
regions between 2002 and 2007 was resolved by means of a peace agreement signed in
March 2007. The State party refers to the observations made by the Federal Administrative
Tribunal on 16 June 2008, in which it concludes that, taking into account the positive
changes that have taken place in Côte d’Ivoire, and in spite of the fact that the complainant
reportedly claims that he has not lived in Abidjan, the file does not contain any elements
GE.09-46730
3