CAT/C/31/D/153/2000
Page 5
rendered him personally at risk if he is forcibly returned to Algeria because of the
probability that the Algerian authorities are aware of the published decision and of the
details of his application for protection.
3.4
The author argues that Algeria remains an authoritarian state with a
consistently poor record of gross and flagrant human rights abuses. It is submitted that
those detained on national security grounds in Algeria are routinely subjected to
torture, and the reports of several organizations are invoked in support of this
argument. This evidence is said to establish “substantial grounds” for believing that
the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to Algeria.
3.5
The complainant seeks a finding that his expulsion from Australia, in
circumstances where he does not have the right to return or go to any other country
except Algeria, constitutes a violation of article 3 of the Convention.
The State party’s submission on the admissibility and merits of the complaint:
4.1
On 14 November 2000, the State party submitted its observations on the
admissibility and merits of the case. It explains that it was unable to comply with the
Committee’s request for interim measures of protection because no written request
from the Committee had been received by the time of the complainant’s removal from
Australia on 26 January 2000. The State party adds that UNHCR’s office in Australia
was notified of the complainant’s imminent removal and did not object, and that all
potential risks of return had been fully assessed based on available country
information.
4.2
For the State party, the complaint is inadmissible as incompatible with the
provisions of the Convention. Further, the State party alleges that the complainant has
failed to make out a prima facie case that there are substantial grounds for believing
that he would be subjected to torture, on the event of his return to Algeria. The State
party adds that the complainant has failed to disclose any reasonable basis for his
belief that he is at risk of torture.
4.3
The State party observed that there is no evidence that Algerian authorities
have ever tortured the complainant in the past, and evidence that he has actually been
involved in the political activities of the FIS is very scant. It argues that the account of
the complainant’s activities contains many inconsistencies, which casts doubts on his
credibility. On the strength of the evidence, the State party does not accept that the
complainant is a FIS supporter.
4.4
On the possibility that the complainant may be required to undergo military
service upon his return to Algeria, the State party argues that the complainant was
unlikely to be required to undergo further military service either because he has
already completed the service, or because he is too old to be drafted into military
service. The State party states that, in any event, any requirement to pertain military
service does not constitute torture. In addition, the State party invokes the Refugee
Review Tribunal’s (RRT) finding that the complainant has fabricated his claim to
have outstanding military service obligations. The RRT stated that the complainant
had exaggerated his claims in comparison to when he first raised them on arrival in
Australia.