|
The Committee
against Torture, established under Article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 30 April 2009,
Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 324/2007 submitted to
the Committee against Torture on behalf of Mr. X 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, her counsel and the State party,
Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the
Convention against Torture.
1.1 The author of the communication dated 2 May 2007 is Mr. X, a Palestinian
born in Lebanon in 1960, detained at the Villawood Detention Centre
(Australia). He sought political asylum in Australia; his request was
rejected, and he risks forcible removal to Lebanon. He claims that by
deporting him, Australia would violate his rights under article 3 of the
Convention against Torture. He is represented by counsel.
1.2 While registering the communication on 27 June 2007, and pursuant to
rule 108 of its rules of procedures, the Committee, acting through its
Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, requested the
State party not to expel the complainant while his case is under
consideration.
The Facts as Presented by the Complainant
2.1 The complainant is a Christian and former member of the Lebanese armed
forces. In 1975, then aged 15, he joined the Christian Democrats (Phalangists)
militia. In 1982, his unit participated in the Sabra and Chatila massacre.
2.2 Shortly afterwards, he became a close assistant to the militia's leader,
Mr. Z; he became aware of a number of illegal acts. He also travelled with
Mr. Z to Switzerland to deposit funds stolen from Phalangist militia in
various bank accounts, including on one on his own name. As he feared he
might be harmed, he began to make copies of sensitive documents to protect
himself. In 1984, the Phalangist party changed allegiance from Israel to
Syria. The party then split into two factions: one headed by Mr. Z, in
favour of Syria, and a second which the complainant supported. He feared
that Mr. Z would begin to threaten him.
2.3 In July 1988, the complainant travelled to Germany and was granted
asylum there. He learned that members of the Phalangist militia participant
in the Sabra and Chatila massacre had been attacked and killed by other
groups, including Fatah and Hezbollah. He was not concerned, as he thought
that people in Lebanon believed him to be dead.
2.4 Later in 1998, Mr. Z located the complainant in Germany and began to
threaten him, his wife, and their children, causing his wife to leave him.
The complainant then paid several German police officers to protect his wife
and children. Later, he was arrested and charged with attempting to bribe
police officers. He was sentenced to 4 years and 3 months imprisonment by
the Regional Court of Dusseldorf.
2.5 The complainant feared that the publicity surrounding his conviction
would draw the attention of the Lebanese authorities. After his release, he
obtained a false Slovenian passport and an Australian tourist visa and
travelled to Australia in March 2002. On 7 October 2002, he applied for
asylum. His application was rejected by the Department of Immigration and
Citizenship on 20 August 2003. The Department found that he was not a
refugee as article 1 F (a) and (b) of the 1951 Convention excludes
protection for those for whom there are serious reasons for considering that
they have committed (a) crimes against peace, war crimes, or crimes against
humanity; (b) a serious non-political crime.
2.6 The Department found that the complainant's involvement in the massacre
of Sabra and Chatila constituted a war crime and a crime against humanity.
His alleged embezzlement of money, and tax evasion in Germany and his
conviction there, were found to give rise to "serious reasons" for
considering that he had committed serious non-political crimes outside
Australia.
2.7 The complainant appealed the Department's decision, and on 29 April
2005, the Administrative Appeals' Tribunal reversed the Department's
findings in relation to Article 1F (a), holding that there was insufficient
evidence to support the conclusion. The Tribunal also reversed the
Department's decision in relation to the tax dispute in Germany. The
Tribunal confirmed, however, that article 1F(b) applied, as the complainant
had stolen money from Mr. Z and was accessory to the theft by Mr. Z or as
there were serious reasons to consider that he had committed these crimes,
and he had bribed German police officers.
2.8 On 9 November 2005, the complainant requested the Minister of
Immigration and Citizenship to exercise his discretion to substitute a more
favourable decision under section 501J of the Migration Act. On 31 July
2006, the Minister declined to intervene.
2.9 The complainant also received a letter from a German Public Prosecutor's
Office, attesting that he had collaborated with the authorities by bringing
to their attention details on the organized crime what contributed to the
prosecution of a number of criminals, and for that he might be the victim of
retaliation.
2.10 The complainant also applied to UNHCR, requesting a letter of support.
UNHCR allegedly replied that it sent such a letter to the Department on 15
February 2007, but the complainant claims that he is unaware of its content.
2.11 The complainant also managed to obtain a copy of the "International
obligations and humanitarian concerns assessment" made in his case by the
Department on 13 February 2006. On the basis of that assessment, a second
request was sent to the Minister to exercise his discretion under section
501J of the Migration on 2 May 2007. The Minister rejected the request 13
June 2007. The complainant thus exhausted all available domestic remedies.
The Complaint
3. The complainant claims that in the event of his forced removal to
Lebanon, there are substantial grounds for believing that he would face
torture there, in breach of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. He
points out that a number of governmental and non-governmental reports argue
that torture is common in Lebanon and that certain groups are more
vulnerable to abuses than others. He contends that as a former Phalangist
and Christian who attracted the attention of the authorities, he is at high
risk of being subjected to torture in Lebanon. He claims that he could also
be tortured by Palestinian groups there due to his past activities.
State Party's Observations on Admissibility and Merits
4.1 On 29 May 2008, the State party contended that the complainant's
allegations are Inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The allegations
concerning torture by Palestinian groups are incompatible with the
Convention's provisions. If the Committee found the case admissible, the
complainant's allegations are to be considered without merit, as they have
not been supported by evidence and the communication does not take into
account recent developments in Lebanon.
4.2 After providing a Chronology of the events in the complainant's case
until his arrival in Australia, in March 2002, the State party recalls that
on 11 April 2002, he sought assistance at a Perth police station and was
taken into immigration detention. On 7 October 2002, he lodged a Protection
visa application, which was rejected on 20 August 2003 by the Department of
Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) on the basis that there were serious
reasons for considering that he had committed war crimes or crimes against
humanity and a serious non-political crime outside Australia, and he was
thus excluded, under article 1F (a) and (b), from protection under the
Refugee Convention. On 15 September 2003, he appealed against this decision
to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).
4.3 On 29 April 2005, the AAT concluded that it could not establish that the
complainant had committed war crimes or crimes against humanity. It
confirmed, however, that he was not entitled to a protection visa as he had
committed serious non-political offences outside Australia.
4.4 In the meantime, in April 2005, the Syrian forces withdrew. Also in
2005, Parliamentary elections were held in Lebanon, and in July 2005 a new
pro-independence Government, which includes members of the Lebanese Forces,
was formed. In August 2005, the Government's 1994 resolution outlawing the
Lebanese Forces was rescinded.
4.5 On 9 November 2005, the complainant asked the Minister for Immigration
and Citizenship to exercise his discretion to grant him a visa. On 13 July
2006, the Minister decided that it was not in the public interest to
intervene. On 2 May 2007, the complainant requested the Minister to exercise
his/her discretion to grant him a visa in light of new information.
4.6 The State party recalls that article 3 enshrines an absolute obligation
not to return a person to a State where there are serious grounds to believe
that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. [FN1] It
refers to the Committee's jurisprudence that this obligation must be
interpreted by reference to the definition of torture set out in article 1.
[FN2] It also recalls that the definition of torture makes it clear that
suffering constituting torture must be inflicted by/at the instigation of or
with the consent/acquiescence of a public official or a person acting in an
official capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] Paez v Sweden, Communication No. 39/1996, 28 April 1997, 86, paragraph
14.5.
[FN2] G.R.B. v Sweden, Communication No. 83/1997, 15 May 1998, paragraph
6.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.7 The State party recalls that the obligation of non-refoulement is
confined to torture and does not extend to cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. [FN3] While the boundary between torture and cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is not always clear, the
historical development of the concept shows that torture involves
intentional harm and a degree of severity going beyond cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] General Comment No 1, paragraph 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.8 The State party recalls that each case must be assessed individually.
Whether conduct amounts to torture depends on the nature of the alleged act
and must involve a degree of severity beyond cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. [FN4] It is not sufficient that there is a
'consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights';
'additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned
would be personally at risk'. [FN5] The State party also recalls that the
onus of proving that there is 'a foreseeable, real and personal risk of
being subjected to torture' upon removal rests on the applicant. [FN6] The
risk in question need not be 'highly probable', but it must be 'assessed on
grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion'.[FN7]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN4] Vuolanne v Finland, CCPR, Communication No. 265/1987, 7 April 1989,
paragraph 9.2; Cruz Varas v Sweden, 20 March 1991, Series A, No 241, 14 EHRR
1, page 37.
[FN5] H.M.H.I v Australia, CAT, Communication No. 177/2001, 1 May 2002,
paragraph 6.5.
[FN6] A. R. v The Netherlands, CAT, Communication No. 203/2002, 14 November
2003, paragraph 7.3.
[FN7] Idem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.9 The State party recalls that it is the responsibility of the complainant
to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility. It
contends that the complainant's allegation that he would be subjected to
torture by the Lebanese authorities due to his former membership of the
Christian Democrats or Lebanese Forces, his suspected misappropriation of
Lebanese Forces funds, and his imputed pro-Israeli political opinion is
inadmissible as manifestly unfounded, because he has failed to substantiate
his claim on the existence of a personal and present risk, for him, in
Lebanon.
4.10 In the State party's view, although the complainant has claimed that a
number of circumstances place him personally at risk, he provides no
evidence to show that under the conditions currently prevailing in Lebanon,
he would attract the attention from the authorities for those reasons, or
that this would amount to treatment which could be considered to be torture
under article 1 of the Convention. The communication relies on outdated
country reports and ignores that the Lebanese Forces are now part of the
Government. The complainant provides no evidence that the authorities would
have any reason to subject him to torture based on his former activities or
based on his political opinions.
4.11 The State party notes the complainant's assertion that the publication
of his involvement in the theft of the funds is likely to have attracted the
authorities' attention, and thus he is at risk to be arrested and tortured.
It notes that he has not provided evidence to show that his name was ever
published, that his alleged involvement in the theft is known in Lebanon,
that he is sought by the authorities, or that there would be any basis on
which he could be detained or arrested in this relation. In addition,
according to the State party, nothing shows that the complainant in fact
ever misappropriated the funds in question. The complainant is said to have
thus failed to substantiate his allegations, and is therefore manifestly
unfounded.
4.12 In the alternative, the State party submits that there are no
substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be subjected to
torture by the Lebanese authorities. It refers to the Committee's General
Comment pursuant to which '[t]he author must establish that he/she would be
in danger of being tortured and that the grounds for so believing are
substantial in the way described, and that such danger is personal and
present. All pertinent information may be introduced by either party to bear
on this matter' (emphasis added).
4.13 The State party notes that the communication provides a bits of
information on the situation in Lebanon, dating from before 2005, and on the
complainant's past. Although the International Obligations and Humanitarian
Concerns Assessment of 13 February 2006 considered that it was possible that
he might be exposed to torture upon return to Lebanon, subsequent assessment
of the complainant's situation by the Australian authorities led to the
conclusion that there were no substantial grounds for such conclusion.
4.14 The State party acknowledges the existence of information that torture
remains a problem in Lebanon in relation to detainees, usually occurring
during preliminary investigations at police stations or military facilities.
Arbitrary arrests and detention of particular groups of people have also
been reported. According to the State party however, much of the information
provided by the complainant pre-dates 2005, when the Syrian forces left and
Lebanon "made significant progress with respect to human rights under a
democratically elected parliament and a reformoriented government." In the
State party's view, although serious human rights abuses, including torture,
remain a problem, it is clear that the political and human rights situation
has changed since 2005 in ways significant to the present case.
4.15 The State party observes that the complainant has claimed that a number
of particular factors expose him personally to a risk of torture in Lebanon.
It reiterates that available information on Lebanon shows that in terms of
behaviour which might constitute 'torture' for the purposes of article 1 of
the CAT, the risk in Lebanon mainly exists for detainees. The complainant
would therefore need to demonstrate that he is personally at risk of being
detained in Lebanon after his return.
4.16 With reference to the complainant's claim that because of his former
membership of the Christian Democrats or the Lebanese Forces, he is at a
'high risk' of being tortured by the authorities, the State party
acknowledges that Lebanon remains beset by ongoing political instability.
The political environment is at an impasse with a stand-off between the
coalition government of the Prime Minister and its opponents led by
Hezbollah, in alliance with Christian Leader General Michel Aoun's Free
Patriotic Movement. However, the Lebanese Forces form part of the current
'March 14 Alliance' Government, having won six seats of the 72 won by the
ruling coalition in 2005, and one Minister is from the Lebanese Forces
Party. According to the State party, there are therefore no substantial
grounds for believing that a person would be subjected to torture by the
authorities simply by virtue of his former membership of the Lebanese
Forces.
4.17 The State party recalls that in support of his allegations, the
complainant cites an NGO report, based on the situation under the previous
Lebanese Government and occupation by Syrian armed forces. No information
was provided about the political situation as it currently stands in
Lebanon, and there is no evidence that the complainant would currently face
persecution by the authorities due to his former membership of the Lebanese
Forces.
4.18 The complainant has also explicitly referred to another report (2005),
which notes that torture remains a problem in Lebanon. The examples given,
however, are irrelevant to his situation. He has provided no evidence that
former Lebanese Forces members are currently mistreated at the instigation
of or with the consent or acquiescence of Lebanese authorities or by persons
acting in an official capacity.
4.19 On the claim that the complainant's involvement in the theft of funds
would expose him to torture upon return, the State party affirms that there
are no grounds to believe that he would be personally at risk. He has
provided no evidence that his involvement in the theft is known in Lebanon.
Details of the theft were mentioned in a local German newspaper outlining
his involvement in planting drugs, but his full name was never published.
The State party explains that after a review of German newspapers, it found
no articles mentioning his name.
4.20 The State party notes that Mr. Z is now deceased, and even if the
complainant affirms to have spoken to Z's wife subsequently, there is no
suggestion that she knew about the stolen money. The State party concludes
that there are no grounds for believing that the complainant's involvement
in the theft would increase the risk of being tortured by or at the
instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official in
Lebanon.
4.21 The State party adds that even if the authorities are aware of the
theft, the offence is no longer prosecutable and there is no evidence that
he is pursued. As of 14 April 2008, there was no Interpol notice for him.
This suggests that he has no substantive conviction in Lebanon, nor is he
currently wanted for outstanding charges, nor is he under an arrest warrant.
In addition, pursuant to the Lebanese Penal Code, the statute of limitations
applicable for misappropriation and theft is ten years.
4.22 The complainant has also not demonstrated that the authorities are
pursuing him in any way. He had cited information from his former wife, who
was in Lebanon in 2003, and his mother in Lebanon in October 2005, that the
police had sought information concerning him, but there is no evidence in
corroboration. The complainant himself contacted the Lebanese Consulate in
Sydney in October 2007, to request a travel document for himself, at the
request of the Australian Government.
4.23 The State party notes that although the complainant does not explicitly
claim that he would face a risk of torture at the hands of the authorities
because of his involvement in the Sabra and Chatila massacre, there is
nothing to suggest that he is sought in this relation. In addition, a 1991
General Amnesty Law provides amnesty for war and humanitarian crimes
committed before 28 March 1991, and applies to the massacre in question.
According to information gathered by the State party, no Phalangists or
Lebanese Forces party members alleged to have participated in the massacres
have ever been charged. Nothing indicates that the current authorities
detain or torture persons because of their involvement in the massacre, and
nothing suggests that the new Government would have an interest in detaining
anyone in this connection.
4.24 Even if any "pro-Israel" opinion could be imputed on the basis of a
person's present or former membership of the Lebanese Forces, for the
reasons provided in relation to the complainant's former membership of the
Lebanese Forces above, there appears to be no basis for believing that the
complainant would be personally and presently at risk from the authorities,
for any opinion that might be imputed to him by virtue of his former
membership in the Lebanese Forces.
4.25 The State party notes the complainant's claim that he would risk harm
amounting to torture by Palestinian groups and Hezbollah due to his
involvement in the Sabra and Chatila massacre, his promotion to the upper
echelons of the party following them, and of his pro-Israeli opinions, and
that the Lebanese Government has no control over the acts of such groups and
would be unable to protect him from them.
4.26 This allegation, according to the State party, is incompatible with the
Convention's provisions, as the acts the complainant alleges he will face do
not fall within the definition of 'torture' set out in Article 1 of the
Convention. The State party adds that in Elmi v Australia, [FN
8] the Committee considered that, in the exceptional circumstance where
State authority was wholly lacking, acts by groups exercising
quasi-governmental authority could fall within the definition of article 1.
Three years later, however, the Committee found, in HMHI v Australia that,
by then, a State authority existed in Somalia in the form of the
Transitional National Government, which had initiated relations with the
international community in its capacity as central Government, although some
doubts may then have existed as to the reach of its territorial authority
and its permanence. In that case, acts of non-state entities in Somalia did
not fall within the exceptional situation in Elmi, and therefore fall
outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN8] Communication No. 120/1998, decision adopted on 14 May 1999, paragraph
6.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.27 In the State party's opinion, despite constant political instability,
Lebanon has a Government which cannot be seen to be wholly lacking a central
authority. Therefore, the complainant's claim to be at risk of revenge
attacks and harm by Palestinian groups or by Hezbollah falls outside the
scope of the Convention and is thus inadmissible.
4.28 Although the complainant refers to his International Obligations and
Humanitarian Concerns Assessment of 13 February 2006, and affirms that
former participants in the massacres have been assassinated - including in
countries outside Lebanon - in 2002, the State party points out that there
is no evidence that such attacks still occur. There is no evidence that the
complainant's involvement in the massacre was known in Lebanon. The
Administrative Appeals Tribunal has concluded that there was no evidence
that the complainant was directly involved in the massacre and that there
were no reasons to believe that he had committed a war crime or crime
against humanity. The Tribunal concluded that it was not implausible that he
would have been promoted after the massacre because he was Palestinian.
4.29 The State party adds that the opposition in Lebanon, including
Hezbollah, sees the formation of a national unity agreement. Hezbollah and
the Free Patriotic Movement issued a joint statement on 6 February 2006,
which stated "[t]o turn the page of the past and have a global national
reconciliation, all the outstanding files of the war must be closed." The
State party concludes that the complainant's claims in this connection are
unsupported by evidence to demonstrate that in the current circumstances in
Lebanon, there would be substantial grounds for believing that he would be
subjected to torture by Palestinian groups or by Hezbollah.
Complainant's Comments on the State Party's Observations
5.1 On 4 August 2008, the complainant affirmed that his initial submission
contains sufficient information about the existence of a risk of torture if
he is forcibly removed to Lebanon. He notes that the State party has
observed that while in February 2006 the International Obligations and
Humanitarian Concerns Association (ITOA) found that he would face a risk of
torture if returned to Lebanon, this risk no longer existed at present. At
the same time however, the State party acknowledges that Lebanon endures
ongoing instability.
5.2 The complainant contends that despite recent changes in Lebanon, the
situation has not been resolved to the extent that the risk of torture he
faces has dissipated. Torture is not specifically prohibited under Lebanese
law. Since the ITOA assessment of 2006, there have been reports that the
Lebanese authorities continue to perpetrate torture. According to the
complainant, there is strong evidence to support the assertion that Lebanon
remains unstable, and the authorities don't have full control over
Palestinian militia groups.
5.3 The complainant notes that the State party contends that there is no
evidence that he misappropriated funds from the Lebanese Armed Forces. The
misappropriation of funds was used as one of the arguments to refuse him a
protection visa by the Department of Immigration.
5.4 With respect to the State party's remark about the missing evidence that
he is presently wanted in Lebanon, the complainant claims that regardless of
whether or nor he is wanted, his return to, and presence in, Lebanon would
suffice to attract adverse attention from the authorities and place him at
risk of torture.
5.5 In relation to his fear of retribution from Palestinian militias, the
complainant affirms that given his relationship with the Lebanese
authorities, there is a real chance that the authorities would acquiesce in
incidents of torture perpetrated against him by Palestinian militias,
"insofar as they would (not) stop acts of torture perpetrated against" him
by Palestinian militias were "they known by the Lebanese authorities".
5.6 The complainant concludes that the State party's observation that the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not find that he had committed war
crimes/crimes against humanity is irrelevant. According to him, the mere
perception or even suspicion by Palestinian groups that he was involved in
the Sabra and Chatila massacre would be a sufficient ground for targeting
him.
Issues and Proceedings Before the Committee
Consideration of Admissibility
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.
6.2 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.
6.3 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the
Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that
the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee
notes that it is uncontested that domestic remedies have been exhausted and
thus finds that the complainants have complied with article 22, paragraph 5
(b).
6.4 The State party submits that the communication is partly inadmissible as
manifestly unfounded, and partly as some of the complainant's allegations
fall outside of the scope of the Convention. The Committee considers,
however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive
issues, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee
finds the communication admissible.
Consideration of Merits
7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainant's removal to
Lebanon would constitute a violation of the State party's obligation, under
article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State
where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in
danger of being subjected to torture.
7.2 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all
relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
However, the aim of such determination is to establish whether the
individual concerned would be personally at risk in the country to which
he/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 a sufficient ground for determining that a particular
person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her
return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the
individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, 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 recalls its General Comment No.1 on article 3, which
states that it is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds
for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to
torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of
torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.
However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.
The risk need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present.
In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the
risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.
7.4 On the issue of the burden of proof, the Committee recalls its
jurisprudence to the effect that it is normally for the complainant to
present an arguable case and that the risk of torture must be assessed on
grounds that go beyond mere theory and suspicion [FN9].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN9] See, inter alia, communications No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, decision
adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision
adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; and No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden,
decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.5 In the present case, the complainant contends that he would be tortured
if deported to Lebanon, on account of his past activities as a member of the
Lebanese armed forces / Christian Democrats (Phalangists) militia, his
participation in the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre, the theft of money
belonging to the Lebanese armed forces, and his pro-Israel opinions. The
State party has refuted these allegations as groundless and has pointed out
that the Lebanese authorities are not looking for the complainant. The
Committee further notes that the complainant has not presented any
meaningful evidence to substantiate his allegations. There is no indication
that Lebanese authorities are currently searching him. As far as his
allegation about his possible persecution or torture by Palestinian groups
due to his past activities and his pro- Israeli opinions, the Committee
notes that, once again, the complainant has provided insufficient evidence
to substantiate his claims.
7.6 The Committee has noted that different reports submitted by the parties
argue that torture remains a problem in Lebanon. In the Committee's view,
however, the complainant has not provided evidence that he is personally
being targeted in Lebanon, by the authorities and/or by Palestinian or any
other armed groups. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant
has failed to demonstrate that he would face a foreseeable, real and
personal risk of being subjected to torture in Lebanon (which acceded to the
Convention on 5 October 2000) if returned there. For these reasons, the
Committee concludes that the complainant's removal to Lebanon would not
constitute a breach 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 complainant's removal to Lebanon
by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the
Convention.
[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.]
|
|