CAT/C/31/D/153/2000
Page 4
2.7
The complainant alleges that he was not notified of the decision to remove
him from Australia. He was effectively removed to South Africa on 26 January 2000.
2.8
In an additional letter dated 12 April 2000, Ms. T. provides further information
about her brother. She states that her brother, after his expulsion from Australia, was
held for 1 or 2 days at an airport hotel in Johannesburg. He was then handed over to
South African government officials and was detained as an illegal arrival in the
Lindela detention centre for more than 30 days.
2.9
On or about 7 February 2000 he filed an asylum application and was granted a
temporary visa, which allowed him to be released from detention.
2.10 On or about 30 January 2000, the complainant was told to expect a visit from
the Algerian Ambassador to South Africa. The purpose of the visit was to provide
documentation for onwards travel to Algeria. The visit did not take place, after
interventions from the complainant’s lawyer.
2.11 The complainant claims that he does not feel safe in South Africa after his
expulsion from Australia. He argues that there is no guarantee under South African
law that he cannot be expelled at any time. His concern about the actions of the South
African government include the notification of the Algerian Ambassador of his
presence in South Africa; accepting and then revoking acceptance of an asylum
application and revoking the grant of temporary visa; his detention beyond the
statutory limit of 30 days in the Lindela detention centre. He claims that because of
arms trade between the governments of South Africa and Algeria, he fears his
application will be rejected in deference to trade imperatives.
2.12
It is submitted that the complaint has not been submitted to any other
procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The complaint:
3.1
The complainant claims that there are substantial grounds for believing that
he would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Algeria and that,
therefore, Australia would be violating article 3 of the Convention if he were returned
there. He claims that he fears prosecution in Algeria on account of his political
opinions and membership of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS). He also fears having to
serve in the Algerian army, and claims that members of his family were accused by
the Algerian authorities of supporting armed Islamic groups. As a consequence he and
other members of his family were targeted by the Algerian army.
3.2
It is submitted that the complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to
torture because of his support of the FIS and his close family relationship with several
people who have been targeted because of their membership of the FIS and, in some
cases, their history of standing as FIS candidates.
3.3
Finally, it is submitted that the complainant is personally at risk of being
subjected to torture due to the publication of the decision of the Federal Court. The
decision provides personal details and family details, his claims, and the process of his
application for protection in Australia. The complainant claims that such publication