Mr. Joseph Voyame (Switzerland)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Alexis Dipanda Mouelle (Cameroon), Mr. Ricardo
Gil Lavedra (Argentina), Mr. Dimitar N. Mikhailov (Bulgaria)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Peter Thomas Burns (Canada)
MEMBERS: Ms. Christine Chanet (France), Ms. Socorro Diaz Palacios
(Mexico), Mr. Yuri A. Khitrin (Soviet Union), Mr. Antonio P. Perlas
(Philippines), Mr. Bent Sorensen (Denmark)
The sixth session of the Committee was attended by al1 the members
except Mr. Gil Lavedra who attended only a part of that session.
||R.E.G. v. Turkey, Comm. 4/1990, U.N. Doc. A/46/46, at
||Report of the Comm. against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 46th
Sess., Supp. No. 46, U.N. Doc. A/46/46, Annex VIII, at 74 (May 3,
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 29 April 1991,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1. The author of the communication is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish ethnic
origin, currently residing in France, where he is applying for political
asylum. He claims to be a victim of torture allegedly perpetrated by Turkish
police in May 1989. Turkey made the declaration provided for in article 22
of the Convention on 2 August 1988.
2. Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee
against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22
of the Convention.
3. Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee
from considering any communication from an individual, unless it has
ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic
remedies; this rule does not apply if it is established that the application
of domestic remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged or would be
unlikely to bring effective relief. The author has invoked this exception,
generally claiming that remedies in Turkey would not be effective; thus he
has not filed any complaint with the competent authorities in Turkey with a
view to initiating an investigation under Turkish law into his allegation
that he was subjected to torture. However, on the basis of the information
before it, the Committee cannot conclude that such a complaint would be a
priori ineffective and, as such, would not provide a remedy that the author
need exhaust before addressing a communication to the Committee.
Accordingly, the Committee finds that the requirements of article 22,
paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met.
4. The Committee therefore decides;
(a) That the communication is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's
rules of procedure upon receipt of a written request by or on behalf of the
author containing information to the effect that the reasons for
inadmissibility no longer apply;
(c) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and, for
information, to the State party.
[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the