CAT/C/64/D/738/2016
APARECO who are particularly visible and people who have taken part in attacks on
representatives of the Government might be at risk of ill-treatment if they were sent back to
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the present case, however, the State party notes
that the complainant does not seem to have reached the level of political exposure described
above.
4.11 Firstly, the State party notes that the complainant did not join APARECO until his
first asylum application had been definitively rejected. As regards his participation in a
demonstration in front of the United Nations Office at Geneva on 13 December 2011, the
available evidence does not give any indication of the extent to which the complainant
spoke out personally and publicly against the current regime at that event. The case file
does not contain any other clear evidence of the complainant’s particular political
prominence, although he claimed to have attended several demonstrations in Zurich, Bern
and Geneva, as confirmed by APARECO in its letter of 30 June 2014. Likewise, as regards
the statement that he has occupied the role of secretary of the Zurich municipal committee
since 2011 and is responsible, in that capacity, for mobilizing and raising awareness among
the Congolese community in exile, the complainant has not provided any evidence, aside
from several letters of confirmation from APARECO, that would enable the authorities to
objectively evaluate the nature and importance of his activities. As noted by the Federal
Administrative Court, during his hearing, the complainant stated that he was always on the
front line at demonstrations, led delegations and took action against the Congolese regime
and that he was responsible for presenting arguments at press conferences. Although the
complainant claims to have played a major role, this claim is not clearly substantiated by
his case file or by public sources, which suggests that he has either misrepresented or
exaggerated the scale of his involvement. In short, the State party considers that, in the
present case, there is no real evidence that the complainant’s level of political exposure is
such as to have attracted the attention of the Congolese authorities and to have put him at
risk of persecution within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention if he were returned to
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The State party notes that this assessment takes into
account the reasons for flight given by the complainant in his first asylum application,
which were deemed by the domestic authorities to lack credibility.
4.12 As regards the complainant’s allegations concerning his brother’s arrest and the
measures taken against his family, the State party notes that the complainant made similar
claims in his first asylum application and that the domestic authorities found those claims to
lack credibility. In his second asylum application, the complainant did not provide any
additional information or evidence that might cause the authorities to change their position.
The evidence submitted by the complainant in his case file does not lead to any other
conclusion. As regards the article published in the Congolese newspaper La Manchette on 8
January 2013, which states that the complainant is a prominent member of APARECO and
that he took part in attacks on representatives of the Congolese authorities in Europe, the
content of the article differs so greatly from the facts related by the complainant and
recorded by the domestic authorities that there is reason to believe the article has been
falsified. That piece of evidence therefore cannot be considered proof of the alleged arrest
of the author’s brother in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, either. The same can be
said of the articles from the newspaper La Référence, which were attached to the
communication but not submitted during the domestic proceedings. The first is an undated
copy, while the second, dated 13 April 2011, was taken from the newspaper’s website. One
quotes the complainant’s mother, while the other quotes his family in Kinshasa; both
sources claim that the family faces persecution because of the complainant’s political
activities in Switzerland. The first article has limited evidential value as it is available to the
Swiss authorities only in the form of a copy. The evidential value of articles also depends
on the nature of the sources they cite. In the present case, the articles simply quote members
of the complainant’s family, whose statements do not constitute objective proof of the
alleged facts. The State party further notes that, according to the article of 13 April 2011,
the complainant’s younger brother went missing on 18 March 2011 at 7 p.m., whereas the
complainant states in his communication of 14 March 2016 that his brother was arrested
“more than a year ago”; his claims are therefore not consistent with the evidence submitted.
Lastly, these articles should be considered in relation to the article from La Manchette,
which the Federal Administrative Court believed to have been falsified. For all the above
GE.18-16592
5