|
The Committee
against Torture, established under Article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 6 May 2004,
Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 243/2004, submitted to
the Committee against Torture by Mr. S.A., 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
complainant, his counsel and the State party,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
The complainant is Mr. S.A., a Bangladeshi citizen, born on 15 February
1966, currently residing in Sweden, where he has sought asylum. He claims
that his removal to Bangladesh The Convention entered into force for
Bangladesh on 4 November 1998, but the State party has not ratified article
22 of the Convention. [FN1] upon rejection of his refugee claim would
constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention by Sweden The
Convention entered into force for Sweden on 26 June 1987, and the State
party has ratified the Committee's competence under article 22 of the
Convention.. [FN2] He is represented by counsel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] The Convention entered into force for Bangladesh on 4 November 1998,
but the State party has not ratified article 22 of the Convention.
[FN2] The Convention entered into force for Sweden on 26 June 1987, and the
State party has ratified the Committee's competence under article 22 of the
Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 The Special Rapporteur on New Communication rejected the complainant's
request for interim measures on 21 January 2004.
The Facts as Submitted by the Complainant:
2.1 The complainant worked as a Joint Secretary for the Bangladesh National
Party (hereinafter referred to as the BNP) in the district of Sutrapur
Dhaka. He arranged political meetings, distributed leaflets and otherwise
made propaganda for the BNP. His political work made him a well-known
character in Bangladesh. His brother, who was also involved in politics, is
said to have been killed by supporters of the rival political party Awami
League in January 1996.
2.2 In 1997, Mr. S.A. participated in a demonstration against the Awami
League. He was arrested together with several other persons, and allegedly
subjected to torture for two days. In September 1999, while participating in
a meeting organised by the BNP, he was again arrested for five days and
subjected to torture. The police threatened him to stop his political
activity.
2.3 In February 2001, policemen and Awami League supporters allegedly
kidnapped the complainant. He was blindfolded, but was aware that his
kidnappers brought him to the Sutrapur police station in Dhaka. During the
three days' arrest, he was subjected to torture, and urged to withdraw from
his involvement in politics, and to tell his mother to drop the murder
accusations in the case of his brother.
2.4 The complainant claims that a group of policemen tried to shoot him in
March 2001, and that he was falsely accused of murder on 17 October 2000. He
subsequently escaped to Sweden, where he applied for asylum to the Migration
Board on 11 April 2001. His application was rejected on 11 June 2001, on the
basis that the Board did not consider that there was any risk of persecution
or torture upon his return to Bangladesh, and that the allegedly false
murder accusations would eventually be dealt with in fair and objective
proceedings. His appeal to the Aliens Appeal Board was rejected on 25
November 2002.
2.5 A medical certificate from the Centrum for Kris- och Traumacentrum
(hereinafter referred to as CKT) dated 19 February 2002, states that the
scars found on the complainant's body are consistent with his description of
torture, and that the findings strengthen his testimony of being subjected
to torture. Another statement from CKT, states that he suffers from a Post
Traumatic Stress Syndrome. On 14 March 2002, the complainant tried to commit
suicide by jumping in front of a subway train. He was hit by the train, but
got only minor injuries. He was subsequently taken to the hospital and
subjected to psychiatric treatment until May 2002.
The Complaint:
3. The complainant claims that if returned to Bangladesh, there are
substantial grounds to believe that he would be subjected to torture, in
violation of article 3 of the Convention. In substantiation of this fear, he
invokes the instances of previous detention and torture on account of his
political activity, and false murder accusations brought against him. He
claims that there exists a consistent pattern of human rights violations by
Bangladeshi authorities, in particular against political opponents and
persons in detention.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee
4.1 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. 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.
4.2 The Committee observes that the main reason for the complainant's fear
of a personal risk of torture if returned to Bangladesh is that he was
previously subjected to torture on account of his membership in what was
then the opposition party BNP. The Committee notes that the ground for which
the complainant was allegedly previously tortured no longer exists, as the
BNP is in effect now the ruling party in Bangladesh. Furthermore, the
complainant has not submitted information or arguments to substantiate that
he personally would be at risk of torture if he were to be imprisoned after
his return to Bangladesh. In the circumstances, the Committee observes that
the complaint, as formulated, does not give rise to any arguable claim under
the Convention.
4.3 Accordingly, the Committee finds, in accordance with article 22 of the
Convention and rule 107(b) of its revised Rules of Procedure, that the
complaint is manifestly unfounded, because the facts argued by the
Complainant, even if they proved to be true, do not present a primae facie
case concerning rights under the Convention. Thus, the Committee finds the
complaint to be inadmissible.
5. Accordingly, the Committee Decides:
a) that the complaint is inadmissible; and
b) that this decision will be transmitted to the author and, for
information, to the State party.
[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.]
|
|