|
| BEFORE: |
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Alexis Dipanda Mouelle (Cameroon)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Peter Thomas Burns (Canada), Mr. Fawzi El Ibrashi
(Egypt), Mr. Hugo Lorenzo (Uruguay)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Bent Sorensen (Denmark)
MEMBERS: Mr. Ricardo Gil Lavedra (Argentina), Mrs. Julia Iliopoulos-Strangas
(Greece), Mr. Mukunda Regmi (Nepal), Mr. Habib Slim (Tunisia), Mr.
Alexander M. Yakovlev (Russia)
The fourteenth session of the Committee was attended by all the
members, except Mr. Hugo Lorenzo, who was not authorized to travel
by the United Nations on the grounds of incompatibility between his
present status of international civil servant and that of member of
the Committee. |
|
|
| Applicant: |
A. E. |
| Respondent: |
Switzerland |
| |
|
| Perma
Link: |
http://www.worldcourts.com/cat/eng/decisions/1995.05.02_AE_v_Switzerland.htm |
| Citation: |
A.E. v. Switzerland, Comm. 24/1995,
U.N. Doc. A/50/44, at 73 (CAT 1995) |
| Publication: |
Report of the Comm. against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 50th
Sess., Supp. No. 44, U.N. Doc. A/50/44, Annex V, at 73 (May 5, 1995) |
|
|
|
|
The Committee
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 2 May 1995,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1. The author of the communication is a Nigerian citizen, born in 1972, who
entered Switzerland from Italy in 1994, and who has been ordered to leave
the country following the dismissal of his application for refugee status.
The author claims that his return to Nigeria would make him a victim of a
violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture by Switzerland.
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. The author's request for recognition as a refugee was refused on 20 May
1994. His appeal against this decision was dismissed on 5 October 1994. On 8
December 1994, the author requested review of the decision on the basis of
new documentary evidence, but declined to pursue the remedy because he found
the costs too high and doubted that he would be successful.
4. 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. In the circumstances of this case, the
Committee finds that the State party should have an opportunity to evaluate
the new evidence before the communication is submitted for examination under
article 22 of the Convention. Moreover, on the basis of the information
available, the Committee cannot conclude that the fee required prevented the
author from exhausting the remedy or that the review would be a priori
ineffective.
5. The Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible;
(b) 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
original version.]
|
|
