|
The Committee
against Torture, established under Article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 23 November 2001,
Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 162/2000, submitted
to the Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Having taken into account all information made available to it by the author
of the communication, his counsel and the State party,
Adopts its Views under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.
1. The petitioner of the communication is Mr. Y H A, a Somali national from
the Shikal clan, currently detained in a Detention Centre in New South
Wales, and seeking refugee status in Australia. He claims that forcible
return to Somalia would constitute a violation, by Australia, of article 3
of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. He is represented by counsel.
1.2 On 20 April 2000, the Committee forwarded the communication to the State
party for comments and requested, under rule 108, paragraph 9, not to return
the author to Somalia while his communication was under consideration by the
Committee. The State party has acceded to this request.
Facts as Submitted by the Petitioner
2.1 The petitioner was born on 1 January 1967 in Mogadishu. He has a son
who, at the time of his application to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("RRT"),
was living with the petitioner's father in Kenya. The petitioner's mother is
dead and he has four siblings all living in Kenya with the exception of one
living in Holland.
2.2 From 1980 to 1987, the petitioner lived with his family in Galkayo, in
the North East of the country, where he was educated and trained as a
mechanic. The family then returned to Mogadishu where the petitioner worked
as a shopkeeper from 1989 to 1991.
2.3 The petitioner left Somalia in 1991 because his father, who had been a
police officer in the former Siad Barre government, was being sought after
by the United Somali Congress (USC) militia. In early 1991, the members of
this militia came to the petitioner's family home and raped and killed his
sister. The petitioner moved to Kenya, where he lived from early 1991 to
late 1992 and he also spent some time there in 1994. During his time in
Kenya he worked in a restaurant.
2.4 In 1992, the petitioner returned to Somalia because his wife was a
member of the Hawiye clan (the same clan as the USC militia) and this
offered him some protection. From 1992 to 1994, the petitioner worked for
the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM) in Mogadishu as an
"informer" telling them where guns were kept. On 3 October 1993, the USC,
having found out that the petitioner was giving information to the UNOSOM,
killed the petitioner's wife and shot the petitioner wounding him in the
kidney.
2.5 Subsequently in 1994, while the petitioner was at his father-in-law's
house, the USC shot the petitioner in the shoulder and killed his
sister-in-law. As his father-in-law, was a Hawiye clan member he was able to
prevent any further killing but later told the petitioner he could not
protect him any longer and took him to the airport where the petitioner flew
to Kenya with his son.
2.6 The petitioner remained illegally in Kenya until 1997. Then he left for
Zambia and subsequently South Africa where he bought a passport in a
different name and used it to travel to Australia. The petitioner arrived in
Australia on 16 July 1998 with no documents. On 28 July 1998 he applied for
a protection visa to the Australian Department of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs ("DIMA"). On 21 August 1998, the petitioner's
application was refused. The petitioner sought review of this decision by
the RRT which affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.
2.7 The RRT expressed reservations about the veracity of the petitioner's
claims but it made no finding that the events as described by the petitioner
did not happen. It found that the petitioner could return to Somalia and
live outside Mogadishu, in the Galkayo area in North Eastern Somalia. In
making its decision, the RRT took note of independent reports that factions
in the North East and North West of Somalia would not accept forced
returnees. It also noted that the petitioner was not willing to return to
any area of Somalia including Galkayo. However, it considered that these
factors did not convert his status into that of a refugee.
2.8 The petitioner sought judicial review of the RRT decision in the Federal
Court of Australia. On 10 September 1999, the Federal Court dismissed the
petitioner's application upon which the petitioner lodged an appeal to the
Full Federal Court of Australia. On 10 March 2000, the Full Federal Court
dismissed this appeal. The petitioner lodged an application for special
leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Federal Court to the High
Court of Australia. The petitioner notes that this is the final appellate
court in Australia.
2.9 According to the petitioner, Somalia remains a failed state and a
territory revealing a consistent pattern of gross and flagrant human rights
abuses. [FN1] He says that the situation of the Shikal in Somalia is
well-known. Amnesty International has described the Shikal as being
"vulnerable to serious abuses including arbitrary killings", and has stated
that it "is opposed to the return of anyone from the Shikal clan to
Somalia". He states that the facts of this case are similar to those in the
case of Elmi v. Australia [FN2], where the Committee found a violation of
article 3 of the Convention. The petitioner also refers to relevant United
Nations bodies which have made it clear that they are opposed to the
involuntary repatriation of failed asylum seekers to Somalia. [FN3]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] Counsel refers to the "1999 Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices", Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of
State, February 25, 2000.
[FN2] Case No. 120/1998, adopted on 14 May 1999.
[FN3] In this context, he refers to the Report on the Situation of Human
Rights in Somalia, in which the Special Rapporteur noted the UNHCR policy of
voluntary repatriation and the "dumping" in Somalia of asylum seekers by
some Western countries which had led to problems of safety for rejected
asylum seekers. He also refers to the opinion of the same Special Rapporteur
who expressed alarm at a plan being considered which would make it difficult
for Somalis to seek asylum in the European Union States, and stated that in
the absence of recognised structures in Somalia that the international
community could formally call upon for human rights protection, Somalis
should not be forced to return to Somalia. See Situation of Human Rights in
Somalia, Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms. Mona Rishmawi, submitted on
accordance with the Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/59, at
paragraph 85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Complaint
3. The petitioner claims that, due to the previous attacks the petitioner
has suffered at the hands of the USC, there are substantial grounds for
believing that the petitioner would be in danger of being subjected to
torture on return to Somalia and, therefore, Australia would be violating
article 3 of the Convention if he were returned there. The petitioner points
out that according to respected sources, "a consistent pattern of gross,
flagrant or mass violations of human rights", prevails in Somalia, and
refers in this regard to article 3(2) of the Convention. It is claimed that
the petitioner himself would be personally at risk of being subjected to
torture if returned to Somalia. He also says that his clan is a minority
clan and, therefore, would be unable to protect him.
The State Party's Observations on Admissibility and Merits
4.1 The State party submits that this communication is inadmissible ratione
materiae on the basis that the Convention is not applicable to the factual
situation submitted by the petitioner. In particular, the State party
contends that the treatment the petitioner may or may not endure if he is
returned to Somalia, does not fall within the definition of torture as set
out in article 1 of the Convention. The State party submits, that to be
classified as torture, the given conduct must inflict "severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental." The State party is of the opinion
that, although past events are a guide to what may occur in the future, the
past incidents alleged by the petitioner do not indicate that it is
foreseeable that he would be the subject of torture if he returned to
Mogadishu. It concedes that the political situation in Somalia makes it
possible that the petitioner may face violations of his human rights, but
contends that such violations will not necessarily involve the kind of acts
contemplated by article 1 of the Convention.
4.2 According to the State party, the petitioner alleges that the petitioner
will be "at risk from members of the United Somali Congress (USC) and "in
danger because he had formerly worked as an informer with the United Nations
Operations in Somalia (UNOSOM)" but he does not allege that he would be at
risk or danger of such acts as would contravene the Convention. In evidence
presented to the RRT the petitioner stated that "he could be attacked by
Hawiye clans people to extort money from him to support their militia, the
USC". However, the threat of extortion does not fall within the definition
of article 1 of the Convention.
4.3 According to the State party, the petitioner has not adduced substantial
evidence that the petitioner is faced with a risk of torture by the USC that
is over and above the risks faced by every resident of Mogadishu caught
between factional fighting of armed groups. It contends that the domestic
review processes expressed serious reservations as to the veracity of the
petitioner's account of events, including conflicting accounts of the
incident involving the death of his wife and the injury to himself.
According to the State party, at the initial airport interview, the
petitioner failed to provide details that either his sister had been raped
and killed in 1991 or that his sister-in-law had been killed in a shooting
incident in 1991 which also resulted in the petitioner being wounded. The
petitioner initially stated that he had never been outside Somalia but
subsequently stated that he first left Somalia in 1991. In a statutory
declaration made to the RRT on 2 September 1998 the petitioner admitted that
he made a number of false statements when he arrived in Sydney. The State
party also states that the RRT found it implausible that UNOSOM would employ
someone who had been out of the country for some period to locate arms
caches in Mogadishu. The State party also referred to the RRT's finding that
the petitioner had attempted to prevent the Tribunal from investigating his
case through people who have first hand information regarding his situation
since 1991.
4.4 Moreover, the State party submits that the acts the petitioner fears if
he is returned to Somalia do not fall within the meaning of "torture" in
accordance with article 1 of the Convention because they are not acts
conducted by a public official or person acting in an official capacity. The
State party accepts that "members of minority groups are subject to
harassment, intimidation, and abuse by armed gunmen of all affiliations"
[FN4] but does not accept that these are committed by, or at the instigation
of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or any other
person acting in an official capacity" as required under article 1 of the
Convention. It asserts that these are acts committed by individuals in a
private capacity for reasons of personal gain. [FN5]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN4] US Department of State 1999 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
in Somalia, p.10.
[FN5] The State party refers to the US Department of State Country Reports
on Human Rights Practices from 1999 which states that "boys as young as 14
or 15 years of age have participated in militia attacks, and many youths are
members of the marauding gangs known as "morian" or "parasites or maggots".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.5 The State party refers to the Committee's View's in Elmi v. Australia,
Case No. 120/1998, adopted on 14 May 1999 [FN6], and accepts that, although
some clans may operate as quasi-governmental institutions in some areas of
Somalia, this must be clearly differentiated from random acts of violence
committed by individuals acting in a private capacity. There is no evidence
to suggest that all members of a dominant clan at all times are acting in a
quasi-governmental capacity. It would also be difficult to determine whether
militia are acting under specific orders at any particular time as "security
forces are unreliable, unpaid, untrained for peaceful duties and often out
of control." [FN7] To support its argument on the necessity to consider
whether acts are conducted in a public capacity or in a private capacity in
order to determine whether those acts constitute torture the State party
provides academic commentary and views of international and national courts
and tribunals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN6] In Elmi v Australia, it was found that "those factions exercise
certain prerogatives that are comparable to those normally exercised by
legitimate governments. Accordingly, the members of those factions can fall,
for the purposes of the application of the Convention, within the phrase
"officials or other persons acting in an official capacity" contained in
article 1".
[FN7] Comment on Somalia's quasi-governmental institutions by the Somali
Researcher, Dr Martin Hill, of the International Secretariat of Amnesty
International in London.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.6 In addition, the State party contends that there is no evidence to
suggest that the alleged acts took place as a result of either, decisions
made by clan hierarchy, or orders from USC leaders. Neither is there any
evidence to suggest that the alleged acts were instigated on behalf of the
clan or militia or that either the clan or militia acquiesced or had any
knowledge of the alleged acts. To support this argument, the State party
makes the following observations on the author's description of events. With
respect to the alleged rape and murder of the petitioner's sister at his
family home, the State party says that the petitioner's allegation that this
was at the instigation of the USC who were seeking out members of the police
force of the former regime, including the petitioner's father, is not
consistent with a report of the Assessment Mission to Mogadishu, in 1991.
[FN8] The State party is of the opinion that this incident was probably a
consequence of the general climate of violence described as prevalent in
Mogadishu at that time, rather than the acts of persons carrying out orders
by USC leaders to torture and kill families of former members of the Barre
regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN8] A Report of the Assessment Mission to Mogadishu, Hiran, Bay, Middle
Shabelle and Lower Shabelle Regions from February 23rd to March 4th, 1991 to
the Inter-NGO Committee for Somalia (UK and Kenya). This report states that
"there are an estimated 3,500 people on the police force at the moment" and
that "police were visible mainly at the airport, and sometimes on the
street". The report also says that there was a significant problem of
looting, killing and assaults.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.7 With respect to the murder of his wife and the assault on the petitioner
himself, the State party points out that the petitioner gave two versions of
the incident. Previously, he said that his house was struck by a bomb during
fighting between Aideed's forces (USC) and UNOSOM. Subsequently, the
petitioner claimed that the attack on his home followed earlier
conversations with members of the Hamiye clan regarding his father's
employment with the Barre regime, during which the Hawiye clan members
stated that they wanted his house. In the event that his second recollection
of events is correct, it does not appear that the individual concerned was
acting in an official capacity. In addition, the petitioner does not say
that either his wife or father-in-law recognised the members as being
leaders of the clan or holding any position of authority within the clan,
despite the fact that they were both members of the same clan.
4.8 With respect to the incident in his father-in-laws house where the
petitioner was wounded and his sister-in-law was shot, the State party
argues that although it is probable that members of the USC militia were
under orders to arrest, torture or kill UNOSOM informants at that time,
there is no explanation why the sister-in-law was killed, when there was no
allegation that she worked for UNOSOM, and the petitioner himself only
wounded. If the USC militia was acting in an official capacity the
representations made by the petitioner's father-in-law would have been
ignored unless he held some position of authority within the USC or Hawiye
clan. There is no evidence that this was the case.
5.1 On the merits, the State party argues that there is no evidence that the
petitioner would now face a risk of torture from the government if he was
returned to Somalia on the basis of either his father's former involvement
with the Barre regime or his employment with UNOSOM. [FN9] It states that
the evidence available to Australia suggests that the new government of
Somalia, which has been elected along strict clan lines, is headed by an
interim President who was himself a Minister in the former Barre regime.
[FN10] The President appointed a former member of the Barre regime as his
Prime Minister, who served as Ministry of Industry between 1980 and 1982.
The Transitional National Assembly consisting of 245 seats, includes
representatives from minority clans as well as the dominant clans in
Somalia. In addition, there are currently three Shikal representatives in
this Assembly who are part of the Hawiye clan allocation of representatives.
These representatives were also closely linked with the former Barre regime.
The fact that both the President and Prime Minister of the newly formed
government were Ministers in the former Barre regime indicates that senior
members of the former regime are no longer targeted, although this might
have occurred immediately following the downfall of the Barre regime.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN9] The State party refers the Committee to its decision in X, Y, Z v.
Sweden, Case No. 61/1996, adopted on 6 May 1998, in which it stated that
"past torture is one of the elements to be taken into account by the
Committee when examining a claim concerning article 3 of the Convention, but
the aim of the Committee's examination of the case is to find whether the
petitioners would risk being subjected to torture now, it returned.
[FN10] According to the State party, when questioned about the Barre regime
the President stated the following " I was a member of Siad Barre's
government. Let me state there are, right now in Somalia, there are three
generations. The first generation of independence ..[t]he second generation
is my generation, and practically everyone of my generation had a role in
twenty years of government. That was not Siad's government, it was the
nation's government. Siad was the president, the man who was leading Somalia
for 20 years. Everyone who was in Somalia for 20 Years. Everyone who was in
Somalia - intellectual or otherwise - served in one or other capacity in
that administration. Not necessarily as a minister, but in any capacity."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.2 The State party also refers to the Interim President's address to the
United Nations General Assembly on 19 September 2000, in which he "extended
his appreciation to the UN for its efforts to alleviate the plight of the
Somali people over the past 10 years and described the recent creation of
Somalia's National Assembly as the beginning of a new era of peace and
stability".
5.3 Although the State party does not deny that the attacks on the
petitioner, his wife, his sister and sister-in-law may have occurred and
that at that time and immediately afterwards the petitioner may have felt
particularly vulnerable to attack by USC militia, and that this fear my have
caused him to flee Somalia, this is not evidence that he would now face a
threat from either of the two factions of the USC i.e. the SNA or SSA.
[FN11] In this context the State party adds that the leader of the SSA, is
also a member of the new Transitional National Assembly and has indicated
that he supports the new President.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN11] The State party refers to the petitioner's fear that he will be
subjected to torture by the USC militia. However, it submits, that the USC
divided into two armed factions (the SNA and SSA) shortly after 1991 and it
is unclear from the case to which faction the petitioner refers when using
the term "USC". Both the SNA and SSA are dominated by rival sub-clans, the
Abgal and Habr-Girdir of the Hawiye clan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.4 As to the petitioner's fear of torture because of his position within
UNOSOM, the State party contends that there is no evidence that this was a
significant position or that he was known generally as being employed by
UNOSOM or contributing directly to the aims of UNOSOM. Neither is there any
evidence to suggest that former employees of UNOSOM are at risk by either
the SNA or SSA. Furthermore, in the absence of any central records kept in
Somalia for almost a decade it is difficult to ascertain how members of
either the SNA or SSA would know about the petitioner's involvement with
UNOSOM without the petitioner's own admission.
5.5 On the allegation that the petitioner is a member of a minority clan
that is unable to offer him protection anywhere in Somalia, the State party
observes that the petitioner did not indicate in his evidence to the Refugee
Review Tribunal hearing that he feared he would he tortured because he was a
member of the Shikal clan. Rather, he stated that "his clan would not be
able to protect him but he could be attacked by the Hawiye clan to extort
money from him to support their militia, the USC." According to the State
party, this does not show how he would personally be at risk as a member of
the Shikal clan.
5.6 The State party accepts that there has been a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Somalia in general and
that members of small, unaligned and unarmed clans, like the Shikal, have
been more vulnerable to human rights violations than members of larger
clans. Although there has been continued violence and upheaval, the risk is
faced by the population at large and is particularly high in Mogadishu and
in Southern Somalia. This does not constitute evidence that the petitioner
himself is personally at risk of torture. In addition, the State party
states that, although the level of violence has declined since the election
of the interim government, the situation remains tense. The interim
government has incorporated many of the militia into a national police
force. Although some of the faction leaders in Mogadishu have refused to
recognise the interim government, the Habr-Girdir sub-clan of the Hawiye
clan supports the interim president. The faction leaders currently in South
Mogadishu come from the Habr-Gridir sub-clan as does the interim president.
5.7 The State party observes that the domestic review processes found that
even if the petitioner did face a danger of torture if he was returned to
Mogadishu, he would have the alternative of settling in Galkayo, (North East
Somalia) where he previously resided for a significant amount of time and
learned a skill. The domestic review processes also found that the
authorities in that region accepted members of other clans, that the region
was still relatively stable and that the petitioner would have meaningful
protection from any harm he claimed to fear. USC militia or its factions are
not in control of this area which is controlled by the Somali Salvation
Democratic Front (SSDF). Two reports conducted on this region have indicated
that North Eastern Somalia has been an area of relative peace and stability
where members of all Somali clans are welcome.
5.8 The State party submits that this finding made by the domestic review
procedures, of the possibility of the petitioner relocating to Galkayo,
occurred prior to the formation of a central government in Somalia, now
established in Mogadishu. As the petitioner was reluctant to return to this
part of the country, and given the new political situation as described in
paragraph 5.1 above, the State party submits that it is now unlikely that
there would be any reason for him to find it necessary to relocate to
Galkayo rather than Mogadishu.
Petitioner's Comments on the State Party's Submission
6.1 In response to the State party, the petitioner reaffirms his claim that
he faces a substantial risk of torture in Somalia because, as a member of
the minority Shikal clan, he is particularly vulnerable in the lawless
conditions prevailing in the whole of Somalia. He says that the RRT accepted
that the petitioner was vulnerable but rejected his claim as there was no
nexus between the danger he faced and his clan membership. He submits that
no such nexus is required under the Convention against Torture.
6.2 In dealing with acts of torture from so-called "non-State actors" or
"quasi-State actors", it is submitted that the Committee should adopt a
broad conception of the reach of state responsibility. In this regard, the
petitioner points to the jurisprudence on the European Convention on Human
Rights. It is not necessary, according to counsel, that the persons carrying
out the acts of torture be somehow "charged with" or "authorised" by some
competent organ. Article 1 of the Convention against Torture extends
liability for acts of torture to include "acquiescence" of the responsible
person. Furthermore, counsel argues, that as was recognised in Elmi v.
Australia, where there has been a breakdown of government authority, private
groups practicing torture are in effect "acting in an official capacity" in
the area in question and article 3 relief should therefore be available.
6.3 According to the petitioner, recent peace initiatives have not ended the
conflict in Somalia. In its most recent report on the situation of human
rights in Somalia of 13 March 2001, the United Nations Commission on Human
Rights noted that Mogadishu remains divided into fiefdoms controlled by the
Transitional National Government and a variety of faction leaders. He noted
that inter-faction clashes often lead to civilian casualties and loss of
property, and it observed that there is a sense of lawlessness prevailing in
the city. He claims that, as a member of the vulnerable clan, he would be
particularly at risk in this climate. Even if he were forcibly returned to
the North East, as has been suggested by Australia, he would have to pass
through Mogadishu and thereby be placed at risk.
6.4 Finally, the petitioner adds that he cannot be forcibly returned to
Galkayo in any event, as the material before the RRT showed that forcible
returnees are not accepted in that part of Somalia. In any event, his
membership of the Shikal clan leaves him just as vulnerable in the North
East of Somalia as, the report to the Commission on Human Rights also noted,
there continues to be serious fighting in North Eastern Somalia,
particularly around Galkayo.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee
7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the
Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention. In this respect the Committee has ascertained,
as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a) of the Convention,
that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also
notes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not contested by the State
party. It further notes the State party's view that the communication should
be declared inadmissible ratione materiae on the basis that the Convention
is not applicable to the facts alleged, since the treatment, the petitioner
may or may not suffer if he is returned to Somalia does not foreseeably or
necessarily amount to torture, set out in article 1 of the Convention, and
would, in any event, not be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with
the consent or acquiescence of a public official or person acting in an
official capacity. The Committee, however, is of the opinion that the State
party's argument ratione materiae raises an issue which cannot be dealt with
at the admissibility stage. As the Committee sees no further obstacles to
admissibility, it declares the communication admissible.
7.2 The Committee must decide whether the forced return of the petitioner to
Somalia would violate the State party's obligation, under article 3,
paragraph 1 of the Convention, not to expel or return (refouler) an
individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for
believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In order
to reach its conclusion the Committee must take into account all relevant
considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
The aim, however, is to determine whether the individual concerned would
personally risk torture in the country to which he or she would return. It
follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or
mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute
sufficient grounds for determining whether the particular person would be in
danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country;
additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned
would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern
of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be
considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her
specific circumstances.
7.3 The Committee notes the petitioner's claim that he faces a real risk of
being tortured if returned to Somalia on the basis of his father's position
as a police officer in the previous government, his own position at the
UNOSOM and his vulnerability as a member of the Shikal clan. In support of
his claim, he outlines past incidents of torture against himself and his
family. The Committee observes that the State party does not deny that these
incidents may have occurred but argues that the petitioner has not been
consistent in his description of events and that these attacks were more
likely to have occurred as part of the general climate of violence in
Mogadishu at the time rather than as a deliberate attempt to target the
petitioner for the reasons outlined by him. The Committee also observes that
the petitioner has failed to explain the inconsistencies in his description
of the attacks, which raise doubts with the Committee as to his credibility.
7.4 In addition, the Committee recalls that, even if the evidence of past
torture provided by the petitioner was not in question, the aim of the
Committee's examination of the communication is to ascertain whether the
petitioner would risk being subjected to torture now, if returned to
Somalia. Given the composition of the new Transitional government, including
members of the Shikal clan itself, the Committee is of the opinion that the
petitioner would not now face such a risk. In light of the foregoing, and
while recognising the ongoing widespread violations of human rights in
Somalia, the Committee finds that the petitioner has not established that he
would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured within
the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.
8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of
the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the petitioner's removal to Somalia
by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the
Convention.
|
|