CAT/C/64/D/738/2016

steps taken by the complainant in Switzerland with a view to obtaining asylum. It notes that
the asylum authorities have duly considered the complainant’s arguments. It states that the
present communication does not contain any new information that might invalidate the
decisions made by those authorities.
4.2
The State party recalls that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are
prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there are
substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to
torture. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent
authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable,
the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass
violations of human rights. With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1
(1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, the
State party adds that the author must establish the existence of a personal, present and
substantial risk of being subjected to torture upon return to his or her country of origin. The
risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. There
must be other reasons for declaring the risk of torture to be substantial (paras. 6 and 7). The
following elements must be taken into account in order to ascertain the existence of such a
risk: any evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human
rights in the country of origin; any claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and
independent evidence to support those claims; the political activity of the author within or
outside the country of origin; any evidence as to the credibility of the author; and any
factual inconsistencies in the author’s claims (para. 8).
4.3
The State party points out that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant
or mass violations of human rights does not, in itself, constitute sufficient grounds for
determining that a particular person would be subjected to torture upon return to his or her
country of origin. The Committee must determine whether the complainant is personally at
risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 4
Additional grounds must be adduced in order for the risk of torture to qualify as foreseeable,
real and personal for the purposes of article 3 (1) of the Convention. 5 The risk of torture
must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 6
4.4
The State party considers that, although the human rights situation in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is worrying in several respects, it does not, in itself, constitute
sufficient grounds for concluding that the complainant would be at risk of torture if
returned there. The complainant has not shown that he faces a foreseeable, real and
personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is returned to the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
4.5
With regard to claims of torture or ill-treatment in the recent past and the existence
of independent evidence to support those claims, the State party points out that States
parties to the Convention have a duty to take into account such claims when assessing the
risk that the complainant would be subjected to torture if returned to his or her country of
origin.7 The State party recalls that, in the present case, the complainant does not state that
he suffered torture or ill-treatment in the past, nor did he make any such statement in his
first application for asylum.
4.6
As regards the political activity of the complainant within or outside his country of
origin, the State party notes that the present procedure concerns only the political activities
that the complainant claims to have conducted in Switzerland since 2010. In his first
application for asylum, the complainant asserted that he had been politically active in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo before leaving the country. However, the Swiss
authorities found that those claims lacked credibility.
4.7
As regards the political activities of the complainant in Switzerland, the State party
notes that the complainant claims to have joined APARECO in 2010. The stated aim of this
4
5
6
7

GE.18-16592

K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2.
Ibid., para. 10.5, and J.U.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/21/D/100/1997), paras. 6.3 and 6.5.
General comment No. 1, para. 6.
Ibid., para. 8 (b).
3

Select target paragraph3