by: J. M. U. M. (name withheld)
victim: The author
communication: 27 June 1996
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
on 15 May 1998,
Decision on admissibility
1. The author
of the communication is J. M .U. M., born on 11 June 1956. He is a
national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire)
and alleges a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention against
Torture. He is represented by counsel.
2.1 The author
left Zaire in June 1990, after having experienced arrest and detention
because of his political activities for the Mouvement National Congolaise
Lumumba (MNCL). He was given a temporary residence permit in Congo,
but left the country because he felt unsafe. He entered Sweden on
14 December 1990 and applied for asylum.
2.2 On 20
January 1992, the Immigration Board rejected his request. The Aliens
Appeals Board rejected his appeal on 3 December 1993. New applications
made by the author to the Aliens Appeals Board were likewise rejected.
The expulsion order against the order was not enforced because he
went into hiding.
2.3 On 27
June 1996, the author presented a communication to the Committee against
Torture under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee, through
its Special Rapporteur for New Communications, requested the State
party on 4 December 1996 not to deport the author while his communication
was under consideration.
2.4 On 13
June 1997, the author filed a new application with the Aliens Appeals
Board, based on new circumstances in his country of origin, after
the Government had been overthrown. The expulsion order against the
author was suspended.
2.5 On 27
December 1997, the Aliens Appeals Board concluded that the limitation
period of the decision on refusal of entry in the author's case, which
had gained legal force on 3 December 1993, had expired and that the
decision had become statute barred. The Appeal Board referred the
case back to the Immigration Board. On 27 January 1998, the author
filed a new application for a residence permit with the National Immigration
Board. According to information provided by the State party, the examination
of his request shall be carried out as if the request had been made
for the first time and the forthcoming decision by the Immigration
Board would be subject to appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board.
and proceedings before the Committee
considering any claim in a communication, the Committee against Torture
must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the
22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee from
considering any communication unless it has been ascertained that
all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. In the instant
case, the original expulsion order against the author is no longer
enforceable and the author is not under immediate threat of being
expelled to a country where he would risk to be subjected to torture.
The author has presented a new application for a residence permit
to the Immigration Board, from which a further appeal would be possible
to the Aliens Appeals Board, if necessary. There is nothing to indicate
that this new procedure cannot bring effective relief to the author.
The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the communication is
at present inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
4. The Committee
the communication is inadmissible;
this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's rules
of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the author
containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility
no longer apply;
this decision shall be communicated to the State party, the author
and his representative.
English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original