|
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.]
|
|