Mr. Peter Thomas Burns (Canada)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Guibril Camara (Senegal), Mr. Alejandro Gonzalez
Poblete (Chile), Mr. Bostjan M. Zupancic (Slovenia)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Bent Sorensen (Denmark)
MEMBERS: Mr. Sayed Kassem El Masry (Egypt), Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis
(Cyprus), Mr. António Silva Henriques Gaspar (Portugal), Mr.
Alexander M. Yakovlev (Russia), Mr. Mengjia Yu (China)
All the members attended the twentieth session of the Committee.
||J.M.U.M. v. Sweden, Comm. 58/1996,
U.N. Doc. A/53/44, at 133 (CAT 1998)
||Report of the Comm. against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 53th
Sess., Supp. No. 44, U.N. Doc. A/53/44, Annex X, at 133 (May 22,
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 15 May 1998,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1. The author of the communication is J. M .U. M., born on 11 June 1956. He
is a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) and
alleges a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention against
Torture. He is represented by counsel.
2.1 The author left Zaire in June 1990, after having experienced arrest and
detention because of his political activities for the Mouvement National
Congolaise Lumumba (MNCL). He was given a temporary residence permit in
Congo, but left the country because he felt unsafe. He entered Sweden on 14
December 1990 and applied for asylum.
2.2 On 20 January 1992, the Immigration Board rejected his request. The
Aliens Appeals Board rejected his appeal on 3 December 1993. New
applications made by the author to the Aliens Appeals Board were likewise
rejected. The expulsion order against the order was not enforced because he
went into hiding.
2.3 On 27 June 1996, the author presented a communication to the Committee
against Torture under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee, through
its Special Rapporteur for New Communications, requested the State party on
4 December 1996 not to deport the author while his communication was under
2.4 On 13 June 1997, the author filed a new application with the Aliens
Appeals Board, based on new circumstances in his country of origin, after
the Government had been overthrown. The expulsion order against the author
2.5 On 27 December 1997, the Aliens Appeals Board concluded that the
limitation period of the decision on refusal of entry in the author's case,
which had gained legal force on 3 December 1993, had expired and that the
decision had become statute barred. The Appeal Board referred the case back
to the Immigration Board. On 27 January 1998, the author filed a new
application for a residence permit with the National Immigration Board.
According to information provided by the State party, the examination of his
request shall be carried out as if the request had been made for the first
time and the forthcoming decision by the Immigration Board would be subject
to appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee
3.1 Before considering any claim in a communication, the Committee against
Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the
3.2 Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee
from considering any communication unless it has been ascertained that all
available domestic remedies have been exhausted. In the instant case, the
original expulsion order against the author is no longer enforceable and the
author is not under immediate threat of being expelled to a country where he
would risk to be subjected to torture. The author has presented a new
application for a residence permit to the Immigration Board, from which a
further appeal would be possible to the Aliens Appeals Board, if necessary.
There is nothing to indicate that this new procedure cannot bring effective
relief to the author. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the
communication is at present inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic
4. The Committee therefore decides:
(a) That the communication 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 State party, the author
and his representative.
[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the