U.N. Doc. CAT/C/15/D/32/1995

 Communication No. 32/1995

 

 20 November 1995

 

Committee AGAINST TORTURE

Fifteenth Session

 13 - 24 November 1995

 

N.D.

v. 

France

 

Decision on Admissibility

 
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)

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.

 
Applicant: N.D. 
Represented By: Association pour la Formation, l'Insertion et le Développement Rural en Afrique (AFIDRA)
Respondent: France
      
Perma Link: http://www.worldcourts.com/cat/eng/decisions/1995.11.20_ND_v_France.htm 
Citation: N.D. v. France, Comm. 32/1995, U.N. Doc. A/51/44, at 64 (CAT 1995)
Publication: 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, 1996)
 

  

The Committee 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 Convention.

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 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 original version.]






Home | Terms & Conditions | About