CAT/C/28/D/185/2001
page 6
2.14 The attached testimony before a notarius publicus in Germany, of a friend who was
expelled from Algeria and tortured upon arrival in Tunisia with him, read that Mr. Karoui had
been submitted to torture. A letter from the Association des Victimes de la Torture en Tunisia
supports the credibility of this friend. Finally, he submitted a letter from Amnesty International,
Swedish division, dated 30 March 2001, referring to the situation in Tunisia where members of
Al-Nahdha are persecuted and tortured, even if they are only sympathizing with Al-Nahdha.
They refer to the case A v. The Netherlands,1 where the Committee confirmed these findings.
Amnesty International also confirms that it has received information about how persons have left
the Tunisian airports with the help of persons present there, and that this method of escape was
used in particular during the mid-1990s. They point out that Mr. Karoui’s description of the
expulsion from Algeria to Tunisia in 1993 corresponds with the information available from
several sources, about how Tunisian asylum-seekers in Algeria in 1993 were returned to Tunisia
where they were reportedly arrested and tortured by Tunisian authorities. Through the UNHCR,
Amnesty International has received information that the Algerian authorities rejected
Mr. Karoui’s application for asylum in 1992. Their conclusion is that Mr. Karoui could risk
torture upon return to Tunisia.
The complaint
3.
Mr. Karoui submits that, if returned to Tunisia, he will be arrested and tortured for his
participation in the former Al-Nahdha Party, and in this connection, for agitation, disturbing the
public order and collection of funds. He adds that there exists a consistent pattern of human
rights violations by Tunisian authorities, in particular against political opponents. Mr. Karoui’s
removal to Tunisia would therefore entail a high risk of being subjected to torture and thus entail
a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
State party observations on admissibility
4.
In its note verbale of 12 September 2001, the State party submits that it does not wish to
raise objections as far as the question of admissibility is concerned.
State party observations on the merits
5.1
In its note verbale of 11 January 2002, the State party submits its observations on the
merits of the case.
5.2
The State party reiterates the Committee’s jurisprudence in e.g. S.M.R. and M.M.R. v.
Sweden,2 that there must exist additional grounds to the existence of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country, indicating that the individual
concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to that country.
5.3
Regarding the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights in a country, the State party notes that although Tunisia has accepted the
Committee’s competence to receive and examine individual complaints under article 22 of the
Convention, the Committee in its consideration of the report submitted by Tunisia, in 1997,