AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 27224/95

                      by R.O.

                      against Sweden

      The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

8 March 1996, the following members being present:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President

                 H. DANELIUS

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

                 A. WEITZEL

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY

           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 B. MARXER

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 N. BRATZA

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 P. LORENZEN

                 K. HERNDL

           Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the application introduced on 9 January 1995 by

R.O. against Sweden and registered on 3 May 1995 under file No. 27224/95;

      Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

      Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent

Government on 2 February 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by

the applicant on 6 March 1996;

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

      The applicant is a Ugandan citizen, born in 1971 in the district of

Soroti in Uganda. He is currently in hiding in Sweden where he has

applied for political asylum. Before the Commission he is represented by

Gunnel Stenberg, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.

A.    The particular circumstances of the case

      The applicant left school in 1990 and started to work for the

Ugandan Government as an informer. The reason for taking this job was

that he wanted to be in a position where he could obtain information

regarding Government activities aimed at the UPC (the Ugandan People's

Congress) and the people of his home district.

      On 2 September 1991, the applicant and another man were sent on a

reconnaissance mission along the road to Soroti in order to see if the

road was clear for a transport of arms. He knew that the arms in question

were to be used against his people, and therefore transmitted the

information about the transport to his organisation. The transport was

ambushed and the weapons taken.

      On 13 September 1991, somebody warned the applicant that soldiers

were looking for him. The following day he left for his home village and

spent the night at a friend's house. On the morning of 15 September they

heard shots coming from the applicant's home. When he arrived there, he

saw his father, mother and youngest sister lying dead. A witness, who had

been hiding nearby, told the applicant that men in uniform had asked for

him. When his parents denied having seen him, the uniformed men shot and

killed them.

      The applicant immediately left Uganda for Kenya. From there he

continued to Tanzania, and from there to Lusaka in Zambia, where his

elder brother had taken refuge before him. The brothers stayed in Zambia

until the end of January 1992. Due to a change in Government in Zambia

their residence permits were not renewed. Instead, they were taken by the

Zambian authorities and kept in detention for two days. They were only

set free because Mr. Okiror E. Oumo, the former ambassador of Uganda to

Zambia, intervened and managed to help them to go to Kenya, where they

eventually were allowed to stay for a month. They applied for asylum in

Kenya but were refused and they therefore had to return to Uganda.

      They entered Uganda via the airport at Entebbe on 1 March 1992.

Having passed the passport control they were immediately arrested

suspected of spying for the former Ugandan President, Milton Obote. They

were taken in army jeeps to the Luzira prison.

      In the prison the applicant and his brother were subjected to

torture while being interrogated as to why they had been in Zambia, and

with whom they had made contact there. The applicant's brother died as

a result of the torture on 20 April 1992. The applicant was subjected to

the following treatment: he was cut in the back with a sharp instrument

which was connected to an electric source. A sharp metal rod was jabbed

into his stomach and on his legs. He was also hit with fists to his head

and face. He was kicked and hit with a blunt instrument against his legs.

He was tied up hand and foot and, lying on the ground, he was forced to

drag himself along using his knuckles.

      At the end of June 1992 the applicant managed to escape from the

Luzira prison. His brother-in-law was an officer working at the prison.

He was married to the applicant's sister who had been active in the UPC

and had disappeared. When the applicant's brother died this officer

received his passport in the line of duty. He therefore also realised

that the applicant was imprisoned there. He had the applicant transferred

to another department of the prison and the torture stopped. He gave the

applicant a small bottle which contained blood. On 23 June the applicant

put the blood in his mouth and pretended to be very ill. He was carried

to a waiting car in order to be taken to hospital as a dying man. On the

way to the hospital the car stopped and the applicant was put in a

coffin. The coffin was taken to a house in Kampala, and there the

applicant hid until he left the country. According to the applicant the

UPC helped him to leave the country. On 26 June 1992, he was again placed

in the coffin. A car took him to the airport and parked in a secluded

spot. The applicant was let out of the coffin, given his passport, a

ticket, some money, the address of a Ugandan lady in Sweden and told to

board a plane for Brussels immediately. He came to Sweden late at night

on the same day.

      On arrival in Sweden the applicant first tried to locate the lady

to whom he had been referred. He managed to do so and on 29 June 1992 his

host took him to the local police station in Olofström, where he was told

that he would have to go to the police in Kristianstad in order to apply

for asylum there. The applicant went there on the same day, but was told

to come back on the following day, 30 June, since there was no

interpreter available. On 30 June 1992, the applicant applied for asylum

referring to the above. He maintained that if returned to Uganda he would

be subjected to imprisonment and torture.

      On 19 August 1993, the National Immigration Authority (Statens

Invandrarverk, the SIV) rejected the applicant's application for asylum

on grounds of lack of credibility. The SIV stated that against his

statement that he was wanted by the Ugandan authorities spoke the fact

that he had been able to leave the country twice with a national

passport. Furthermore, the SIV found that they could not believe the

applicant's story about his flight from the Luzira prison because of the

serious accusations which he claimed had been made against him. Thirdly,

the SIV also referred to the fact that the applicant had been in Sweden

for five days before he applied for asylum there.

      The applicant appealed against this decision to the Aliens Appeals

Board (Utlänningsnämnden). In his appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board he

stated that the first time he left Uganda he was taken to the Kenyan

border by a friend. The authorities there had obviously not yet received

any warrant for his arrest. Before passing the border the applicant

stayed for a couple of days with an old man. It was this man who entered

the border control while the applicant stayed outside. Therefore he does

not know whether or not any bribe was paid. After that the applicant

passed the border.

      Regarding the second time he left Uganda the applicant stated that

he was helped to bypass the passport control by one of the persons

accompanying him, who also was an officer in the army. The other person

who accompanied him must at the same time have gone through the passport

control with the passport. It was only later that the applicant was given

his passport, the ticket and the money.

      The applicant now also presented new evidence by way of a medical

report made by Dr. Sten Jakobsson, at the Stockholm-based Centre for

Treatment of Torture Victims (Centrum för tortyrskadade; CTD), dated

8 December 1993. The report concluded that it seemed very likely that the

applicant had suffered torture in the manner he had stated, and that

thereby he had received the mental and psychological injuries which had

been documented. The report also stated that the applicant needed

treatment for the injuries sustained and that this kind of treatment

would probably not be available in Uganda.

      In March 1994 the Aliens Appeals Board went to Uganda on a so-called

investigation trip (utredningsresa) in order to clarify the circumstances

prevailing there.

      On 19 April 1994, the Aliens Appeals Board upheld the decision of

the SIV including the reasons for that decision. The Board stated that

the UPC was a legal party and also the biggest opposition party in

Uganda, and that it is represented in Parliament. The Board therefore

found reason to disbelieve the applicant's statements regarding his

political activities and his flight from prison. Regarding the medical

report by Dr. Jakobsson, the Board found that the findings were based on

the applicant's own statements. In view of the Board's findings regarding

the applicant's credibility in general, the Board stated that the

injuries "could have emerged in some other way".

      Subsequent applications were rejected by the Aliens Appeals Board

on 12 July, 29 July and 15 August 1994 as they contained no relevant new

information.

B.    Relevant domestic law and practice

      The basic provisions concerning the right of aliens to enter and

remain in Sweden are found in the 1989 Aliens Act (Utlänningslagen). The

Act also defines the conditions under which an alien can be expelled from

the country, as well as procedures related to the enforcement of

decisions under the Act. There are normally two instances which deal with

matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in Sweden;

the National Immigration Authority (the SIV) and the Aliens Appeals

Board. In exceptional cases, the Government may determine whether or not

an alien is allowed to remain in Sweden following the referral, by either

the SIV or the Aliens Appeals Board, of an application for asylum or a

residence permit. This may occur inter alia when it is deemed to be of

special importance in order to obtain guidelines for the application of

the Act.

      Under Chapter 8 Section 1 of the Act an alien, who has been refused

entry or who shall be expelled, may never be sent to a country where

there is firm reason to believe that he or she would be in danger of

suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to

torture. Nor may he or she be sent to a country where there is no

protection from being sent to a country where such danger exists.

      Furthermore, an application for a residence permit by an alien, who

is to be refused entry or expelled under an order which has acquired

legal force, may be granted under Chapter 2 Section 5 b of the Aliens Act

if it is based on circumstances which have not previously been examined

in the case concerning his or her refusal of entry or expulsion and if

(1) the alien was entitled to asylum in Sweden, or (2) it would otherwise

be in conflict with humanitarian requirements to enforce the decision on

refusal of entry or expulsion.

      When considering a residence permit application from an alien, who

is to be refused entry or expelled under an order which has acquired

legal force, the Aliens Appeals Board may decide, pursuant to Chapter 8

Section 10 of the Act, to stay the enforcement of the order made

previously. According to Chapter 8 Section 10 in fine, the SIV may decide

to stay enforcement in other situations if there are particular reasons

for such a decision.

      Finally, under Chapter 8 Section 13 of the Act, the enforcing

authority, i.e. a police authority, is to notify the SIV if it finds that

enforcement cannot be carried out or that further information is needed.

In such a case, the SIV may decide on the question of enforcement or take

such other measures as are necessary.

COMPLAINTS

      The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that he

would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to that

provision if he were returned to Uganda. He submits that the written

evidence he has produced, in particular the report of the CTD and a

letter of 17 June 1994 from the former ambassador Mr. Oumo, show that

there are substantial grounds for believing this to be true.

      The applicant also complains of a violation of Article 13 of the

Convention in that the remedy provided by law - the appeal to the Aliens

Appeals Board - has not proved effective in this case.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The application was introduced on 9 January and registered on 3 May

1995.      On 8 December 1995, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of

the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the respondent

Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the

proper conduct of the proceedings not to deport the applicant to Uganda

until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the application.

The Commission further decided, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b)

of the Rules of Procedure, to communicate the application to the

respondent Government.

      On 25 January 1996, the Commission prolonged the indication under

Rule 36 until 8 March 1996.

      The Government's observations were submitted on 2 February 1996

after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose. The

applicant's observations in reply were submitted on 6 March 1996.

THE LAW

1.    The applicant complains of his impending expulsion to Uganda stating

that he fears ill-treatment on account of his previous activities there.

He invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention which reads as follows:

      "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or

      degrading treatment or punishment."

      In particular the applicant maintains that the democratisation

process now taking place in Uganda has been subject to many delays which

to a significant extent are caused by President Museveni and his

reluctance to relinquish power. Although the UPC members are included in

the Government the applicant contends that persecution and harassment of

UPC members continues as the UPC is still regarded as a real political

danger to the present President. Thus, the applicant maintains that the

political situation in Uganda today is far from stable.

      As to his own situation the applicant maintains that there are

strong grounds for believing that he would face a risk of treatment

contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention if returned to Uganda.

It has been established that he has already been subjected to such

treatment previously and his fears of a continuation are linked to the

fact that he allegedly has connections to the former President Milton

Obote and is a friend of the former ambassador Okiror Oumo.

      The Government point out that there appears to have been a

considerable improvement in Uganda during recent years with regard to the

overall security in the country as a result of the increase in political

stability and the corresponding decrease in military activity. Regular

guerilla warfare has decreased as well, and certain groups have announced

that they have abandoned their insurgency, leaving only attacks by

bandits lacking ideological background and cause. Furthermore, the

Government maintain that the human rights situation has improved and

alleged Government-linked disappearances, torture or killings have

remained unproven and unsubstantiated, whereas several prominent Ugandans

have returned from exile.

      As regards the applicant's allegation of torture the Government do

not dispute the findings in the available medical opinions. However, even

assuming that the applicant's story is correct the Government contend

that having regard to the general situation in Uganda, it is unlikely

that he would risk persecution or harassment if he returned today.

Finally, the Government maintain that the applicant's health situation

is not of a kind which could prevent the enforcement of an expulsion

order, but it remains a factor always to be taken into consideration at

the time of enforcement.

      The Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right to

control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to asylum

is not protected in either the Convention or its Protocols (Eur. Court

H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of 30 October 1991, Series A no.

215, p. 34, para. 102). However, expulsion by a Contracting State of an

asylum seeker may give rise to an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the

Convention, where substantial  grounds have been shown for believing that

the person concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture

or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to

which he or she is to be expelled (ibid., p. 34, para. 103). A mere

possibility of ill-treatment is not in itself sufficient to give rise to

a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).

      In the present case the Commission recalls that the activities to

which the applicant has referred were aimed at assisting the UPC which

is a legal political party and today represented in the Ugandan

Parliament. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the Aliens Appeals

Board, prior to taking its decision in the applicant's case, visited

Uganda in order to obtain first hand information on the situation there.

      In these circumstances, the Commission shares the Swedish

authorities' doubts as to whether the applicant would today, on account

of his previous actions as described by him, face a real risk of

treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3), if returned to Uganda. Thus,

the Commission considers, on the evidence before it concerning the

applicant's purported background and the current situation in Uganda,

that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for

believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to

treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention if expelled

to that country.

      Moreover, the Commission recalls that Chapter 8, Section 1 of the

Aliens Act imposes an absolute obligation on the enforcement authority

in Sweden to refrain from expelling an alien should the human rights

situation in the receiving country constitute a firm reason to believe

that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to capital or

corporal punishment, or torture, in that country.

      It follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2.    The applicant also complains that the remedy provided by law - an

appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board - did not prove effective in his case.

He invokes Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention which reads:

      "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before

      a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has

      been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

      The Commission notes that an appeal against the National Immigration

Authority's decision concerning asylum lies with the Aliens Appeals Board

which has the power to decide the matter regardless of  the outcome in

the previous proceedings. The mere fact that an appeal  for reasons of

substance is not successful does not mean that this remedy is not

"effective" within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.

      It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

      DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission

       (H.C. KRÜGER)                         (S. TRECHSEL)