|
The Committee
against Torture, established under Article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 2 May 2003,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1.1 The complainant is Mr. H.I.A., a Jordanian national, born on 14 December
1952, currently residing in Sweden and awaiting deportation to Jordan. He
claims that his forcible return to Jordan would constitute a violation by
Sweden 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 29 August 2002, the Committee forwarded the complaint to the State
party for comments.
Facts
2.1 The complainant was born and raised in Nablus (West Bank), where he
lived until 1971. That year the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)
[FN1] imprisoned him for being an Israeli spy and traitor for a total of
nine months in two locations in Lebanon, before being freed by an
(unspecified) Court 36. He alleges that he was tortured and beaten during
his detention. After traveling to Syria, he was again imprisoned by the PLO
for the same reasons (apparently in Syria), and released by an (unspecified)
Court 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The complainant refers to the "PLO" (except for one reference to the
Palestinian Authority) throughout the complaint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.2 Following his release, the complainant lived in the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) for 23 years. In 1995, he allegedly wanted to sell land in Netanya,
Israel, that he had inherited from his mother, but he was unable to conclude
the sale as Israeli law prescribed that the transaction would have to take
place in either Israel or Jordan, allegedly neither countries to which he
could travel. He contends that he rejected a PLO request to buy the land at
a low price, was threatened that he could not sell it elsewhere and labeled
a traitor.
2.3 Upon return to the UAE after an attempt, in 1996, to sell the land in
Lithuania, he was arrested and detained for three months for rent arrears
approximating US$3,000. He contends that the real reason for his arrest was
"political", and that after his employer learnt of his efforts to sell the
land, his contract was not renewed. The complainant contends that the UAE
intelligence service then became aware that the PLO considered him a
traitor, and his residence permit was withdrawn.
2.4 As he did not want to return to Jordan for fear of persecution, the
complainant left the UAE in 1998 for Lithuania. He married a Lithuanian
woman and was granted a residence permit. On 6 November 1999, his residence
permit expired and was not prolonged because his wife, from whom he had
separated, was opposed to the renewal. On 17 December 1999, the complainant
traveled to Sweden and applied for asylum on 20 December 1999. Attempting to
prolong his passport, the complainant's (Jordanian) lawyer informed him that
the Jordanian security services requested his and his children's presence in
the country in order to do so. His children and their mother reside in
Damascus, Syria, on expired passports, and they allegedly cannot travel to
Jordan to renew them.
2.5 On 17 April 2001, the State party's Migration Board denied the
complainant's application. The Aliens Appeals Board rejected his appeal on
24 April 2002. A further application (based upon factual circumstances that
had not previously been examined by the authorities) was rejected on 3 June
2002.
The Complaint
3.1 The complainant contends that due to his continued efforts to sell land
and his refusal to co-operate with the PLO, he is regarded as disloyal to
the Palestinian cause, and is at personal risk of being subjected to torture
in Jordan. He also fears that, as there is allegedly close co-operation
between the Jordanian authorities and the PLO, he may possibly be handed
over to the PLO. He cites reports of non-governmental organizations in
support of the proposition that both Jordan and the Palestinian Authority
are engaged in gross, flagrant and mass violations of human rights. [FN2]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] Extract from (apparently) Human Rights Watch "Torture and physical
abuse by the security forces" (unspecified/undated weblink); Amnesty
International "Human rights in the Middle East: Reports: Jordan" (www.amnesty-volunteer.org/usa/mideast/reports/jordan.html;
according to the webpage, it was last updated on 4 January 1998); Amnesty
International "Jordan: An absence of safeguards" (web.amnesty.org/802568F7005C4453/0/DE839FE5F4399ED18025690000692C42?Open;
1 November 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.2 The complainant states that the same matter has not been submitted for
examination under another procedure of international investigation or
settlement.
The State Party's Observations on Admissibility and Merits
4.1 By letter of 18 November 2002, the State party contested the
admissibility and merits of the complaint, pointing out, as to the facts,
that while in Lithuania, the complainant applied on 30 November 1998 to its
Embassy in Vilnius for a 3 week visa in December 1998. At the time, he held
a Jordanian passport valid until February 2000. His visa application was
rejected on 3 December 1998, but he entered Sweden on 17 December 1999 with
a forged Lithuanian passport.
4.2 During the complainant's first interview with the Immigration Board, he
stated that he had gone Lithuania to contact Jewish connections with a view
to selling the land. There, an "Arab mafia" had allegedly threatened his
life because he wanted to sell land to Jews. Family members in Amman,
Jordan, had done likewise. He also came to Sweden as he wanted to invest in
Swedish business and make his living that way.
4.3 At subsequent interviews, he stated that in 1975 the Jordanian
authorities refused for one year to renew his passport. After family
intervention, it was renewed allegedly only on condition that he would not
return. Thereafter, it was renewed every fifth year several times, until in
Lithuania, the "Arab mafia" took his passport when he purchased a forged
Lithuanian passport. In Sweden, he intended to contact Jews for the purpose
of selling his land, and he could no longer obtain a Jordanian passport as
his efforts to sell the land were known. He had never been politically
active.
4.4 The Migration Board, in rejecting his applications for asylum and a
residence permit, found inter alia that he had not invoked any reason apart
from financial reasons to sell the land he had inherited. The fact that he
was able to obtain extensions of his passport while allegedly being wanted
by the Jordanian security service was contradictory. Moreover, he was found
not guilty both times he was tried in the early 1970s. Accordingly, he had
not substantiated that he risked persecution as a refugee, or was otherwise
in need of protection.
4.5 The Aliens Appeals Board, in turn, found that the complainant had not
justified any fear of being in an exposed position in his own country, and
observed that his arrests by the PLO had taken place some 30 years
previously. The claim that his land dealings implied great risks in Jordan
was pure speculation. Moreover, it was relevant that he could prolong his
Jordanian passport on several occasions without difficulty. He thus had not
substantiated that Jordanian authorities or others in that country were
interested in him on grounds such as political opinion. The Board referred
to the Committee's jurisprudence that the burden of proof was not high in
alleged torture cases, complete evidence in clear support of such a claim
being rare. The risk of torture upon return, while having to be more than a
theoretical possibility or mere suspicion, did not have to be highly
probable. Applying these standards, the Board found that there did not exist
substantial grounds to believe he would in fact face torture in the event of
a return to Jordan, or even a real risk thereof. In support of his
subsequent application, the complainant supplied a declaration from his
lawyer that the Jordanian authorities had refused to renew his passport and
had instead referred him to the security service.
4.6 As to the admissibility of the case, the State party argues that the
complaint is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention,
for lacking the minimum substantiation required of an alleged breach of
article 3. The State party refers, for this conclusion, to the Committee's
jurisprudence [FN3] and its arguments on the merits, set out below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] See, for example, Y v Switzerland Case No 18/1994, Views adopted on 17
November 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.7 As to the merits, the State party outlines the salient features of its
asylum law, as applicable to the complainant. Under the asylum legislation,
an alien is entitled to a residence permit (and a ban on removal) of he has
a well-founded fear (i) of sentence of death or corporal punishment in the
State of origin, (ii) of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, or (iii) of persecution. The Migration
Board (at first instance) must hold an oral hearing with the asylum seeker,
and the Aliens Appeal Board does so if this would benefit the proceedings
before it. After refusal, a new application advancing factual circumstances
not previously considered may be brought, in which the same grounds as above
provide entitlement to a residence permit, or where enforcement of the
expulsion would be contrary to requirements of humanity.
4.8 The State party refers to the Committee's constant jurisprudence that
while it takes into account all relevant considerations, including the
existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations in
the country in question, it is ultimately the individual concerned who must
show a personal risk of being subjected to torture. Concerning the general
situation in Jordan, the State party points out that, while not ideal,
certain improvements have taken place in the last few years. In 2001, steps
were taken to strengthen the judiciary's independence, and there were
neither reports of arbitrary/unlawful deprivation of life by State agents
nor of politically-motivated disappearances, nor of political prisoners. The
law provides provides prisoners with the right to counsel and to humane
treatment. Most prisons meet international standards, and, with some
exceptions, the ICRC is permitted unrestricted access to prisoners and
facilities, including those of the General Intelligence Directorate. In
1999, the government also formally granted UNHCR access, while local human
rights monitors are allowed to visit prisons. The Government does not
routinely use forced exile. Jordan is a party to several major human rights
instruments, including, since 13 November 1991, the Convention against
Torture.
4.9 As to whether the complainant faces a personal risk of torture, the
State party points out that the Swedish authorities apply the test contained
in article 3 of the Convention, as well as the Committee's interpretation,
as shown, by the Appeals Board decision in particular. The national
authority conducting the interviews is in a particularly good position to
assess the credibility of the complainant's statements. In this case, the
Migration Board took its decision after three interviews totaling 5.5 hours,
which, taken together with the facts and documentation of the case, ensured
that it had a solid basis for making its assessment regarding the
complainant's need for protection.
4.11 The State party argues that, as a consequence, great weight must be
attached to the decisions of its authorities, and refers the Committee to
their decisions. It recalls that the complainant claims that he risks
torture upon expulsion to the country of his nationality as a consequence of
his efforts to sell land allegedly inherited by him, and his refusal to
co-operate with the PLO. He claims he is considered a traitor by the PLO,
and that the PLO has an excellent relationship with the Jordanian
authorities who may torture him or possibly hand him over to the PLO. In
response, the State party observes that at his initial interview, the
complainant only referred to land problems, making no mention of having been
ill-treated by the PLO as an alleged spy. Instead, he claimed to have been
threatened by a Lithuanian "Arab mafia" and his own family in Jordan. From
the information submitted by the complainant himself, he seems to have come
to Sweden in order to sell the land in Israel and invest the proceeds in
Sweden. In the State party's view, his asylum application was primarily
motivated by economic interests, which are not in themselves grounds for
which protection under the Convention is afforded.
4.12 As to whether any risk of torture currently exists, the complainant's
alleged torture at the hands of the PLO (an issue not initially raised)
occurred some 30 years ago, a fact which must by now be deemed to lack
relevance. Nor has the complainant in any way substantiated, beyond mere
statements, that he was arrested and tortured by the PLO in Lebanon and
Syria. While he claimed he had only been in Jordan once for a short period,
Jordan remains his country of nationality (with a large Palestinian
population) and a wish not to reside there cannot ipso facto confer
entitlement to protection in another country.
4.13 The State party observes that the complainant also stated that he had
held a Jordanian passport for 20 consecutive years until it was taken from
him by an "Arab mafia" in return for the forged passport. The complainant
stated that it was renewed, every fifth year, even though Jordanian
intelligence allegedly knew even then of his imprisonment in the 1970s and
the accusation of spying for Israel. These circumstances relating to the
complainant's passport undermine the credibility of his claims.
4.14 The State party notes that at no time (including in the complaint) has
the complainant claimed that he had been politically active or that he had
worked in any way against Jordan or the Palestinian cause. Nor has he
submitted to the Committee any information substantiating his claim that he
will be "persecuted and tortured by the Jordanians and possibly handed over
to the PLO". The State party thus maintains that the complainant's
assertions about the consequences of his efforts to sell the land allegedly
inherited by him amount to no more than mere theory and suspicion.
4.15 Taking these circumstances in their totality, the State party submits
that the complainant has failed to show that there is a foreseeable, real
and personal risk of torture in the event of his return to Jordan, and
accordingly there is no issue arising under article 3 of the Convention.
Complainant's Comments on the State Party's Submissions
5.1 By letter of 30 December 2002, the complainant responds to the State
party's submissions, contending that the reason he was arrested in Lebanon
in 1971 was that the Israeli intelligence service recruited him prior to his
departure to study in Lebanon. He alleges he was arrested after a week and
identified by a Palestinian official, related to his mother's first husband,
who had been in Nablus prison when the complainant was in contact with
Israeli intelligence authorities located in the same building.
5.2 From 1995 until 1997, transactions concerning land in Israel could be,
and were, undertaken in Jordan. The complainant argues that if he is
returned to Jordan, he would be accused of seeking asylum in Sweden, and
selling land in Israel. The spying issue could also be re-opened, which
could result in a long prison sentence during which he could be mistreated
by other inmates. If he is released upon his return, he could be pursued by
Palestinian organizations in Jordan. He argues that Yasser Arafat himself
could reopen his case.
5.3 Finally, he alleges that the State party wishes to deport him as a
matter of convenience, as his is a political case connected with both Israel
and the Palestinian Authority.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee
6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee
against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22
of the Convention. 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 further notes the
State party's acknowledgment that domestic remedies have been exhausted.
6.2 As to the State party's argument that the complaint is inadmissible for
incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention, the Committee
considers that the part of the complaint concerning the alleged possibility
of being handed over to Palestinian authorities is mere speculation on the
complainant's part. The Committee observes that the possibility of any such
handover, let alone any consequences that might follow, have not been
substantiated in any form. Similarly, the complainant's claims with respect
to Jordan plainly fail to rise to the basic level of substantiation required
for purposes of admissibility. As a result, the Committee considers, in
accordance with article 22 of the Convention and Rule 107(b) of its revised
Rules of Procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded, and thus
inadmissible.
7. Accordingly, the Committee decides:
a) that the complaint is inadmissible;
b) that this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the
complainant.
[Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the
original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as
part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.]
|
|