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)
All the members attended the fifteenth session of the Committee
except Mr. Hugo Lorenzo. Mr. Alexander M. Yakovlev attended the
second week of the session only.
With regard to the absence of Mr. Lorenzo, at both the fourteenth
and fifteenth sessions, the Committee took note of the reply of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, dated 23 May 1995, to a
letter addressed to him by the Committee, through its Chairman, on
24 April 1995, [FN1] by which the Secretary-General confirmed that Mr.
Lorenzo was not authorized to serve as member of the Committee as
long as he remained a staff member of the United Nations.
FN1. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth Session,
Supplement No. 44 (A/50/44), paras. 7 and 8.
Association pour la Formation, l'Insertion et le Développement Rural
en Afrique (AFIDRA)
||N.D. v. France, Comm. 32/1995, U.N.
Doc. A/51/44, at 64 (CAT 1995)
||Report of the Comm. against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 51th
Sess., Supp. No. 44, U.N. Doc. A/51/44, Annex V, at 64 (May 10,
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 20 November 1995,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1. The author of the communication is a Zairian citizen, currently residing
in France. She claims that her return to Zaire following the dismissal of
her application for refugee status would violate article 3 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. She is represented by AFIDRA.
2. On 12 September 1993, the author filed a request to be recognized as a
refugee in France, which was rejected by the Office français de protection
des réfugiés et apatrides (French Office for the Protection of Refugees and
Stateless People) on 16 February 1994. Her appeal was rejected by the
Commission des recours des réfugiés (Commission of Appeal in Refugee
Matters) on 20 June 1994. A new application was rejected on 22 September
1994 by the Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides and on 8
March 1995 by the Commission des recours des réfugiés. It appears that the
dismissal of the application by the Commission des recours des réfugiés is
at present subject of an appeal in cassation before the Conseil d'Etat,
which has not yet rendered its judgement.
3. An expulsion order (arrêté de reconduite en frontière) issued against the
author is at present on appeal before the Conseil d'Etat, which has not yet
decided on the case. A second expulsion order against the author was quashed
by the Tribunal administratif of Paris.
4. Before considering any claim in a communication, the Committee against
Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the
5. Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee
from considering any communication, unless it has ascertained that all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted; 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 instant case, the expulsion order against the author is
subject of an appeal before the Conseil d'Etat. The author has not invoked
any circumstances to show that this remedy would be unlikely to bring
effective relief. Moreover, it appears from the information submitted by the
author that a subsequent expulsion order against her was quashed by the
Tribunal administratif. In the circumstances, the Committee is at present
precluded from considering the author's communication.
6. The Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication, as submitted, is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's
rules of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the author
containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no
(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