U.N. Doc. CAT/C/15/D/35/1995

 Communication No. 35/1995


 22 November 1995



Fifteenth Session

 13 -24 November 1995






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, 1/ 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.

1/ See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/50/44), paras. 7 and 8.
Applicant: K.K.H. 
Respondent: Canada
PermaLink: http://www.worldcourts.com/cat/eng/decisions/1995.11.22_KKH_v_Canada.htm 
Citation: K.K.H. v. Canada, Comm. 35/1995, U.N. Doc. A/51/44, at 66 (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 66 (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 22 November 1995,

Adopts the following:

Decision on Admissibility

1. The author of the communication is a national of Ghana, who arrived in Canada in March 1992 and applied for asylum following his escape from prison where, accused of having participated in an attempt to assassinate the Ghanaian Head of State, he had spent almost four years. He claims that his return to Ghana following the rejection of his application for refugee status would be in violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He is represented by counsel.

2. On 9 June 1994, the author's application for asylum was dismissed by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. On review, the Federal Court of Canada dismissed his application by decision of 2 May 1995.

3. The author submits that since the decision of the Federal Court he has received evidence that he was being sought by the Ghanaian authorities. He claims that a notice appeared in the Ghanaian newspaper The Guide in September 1995 stating that he had returned to the country and that he was wanted for treason. On this basis, the author submits that, as he is wanted by the authorities, his life would be in danger in Ghana and he requests the application of article 3.

4. Before considering a complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication 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 shall not be the rule 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 to the victim. In the instant case, the Committee notes that in Canada there is a risk-assessment procedure which may be invoked even following a refusal by the Federal Court to grant asylum. It does not appear from the communication that the author has informed the Canadian immigration authorities of the new evidence in support of his claim that his life would be in danger if he had to return to Ghana. The Committee considers that the Canadian authorities should have the opportunity to examine the new evidence submitted by the author before it can consider the communication.

6. The Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the communication, as submitted, is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author of the communication, to his counsel and, for information, to the State party.

[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French text being the original version.]

Home | Terms & Conditions | About