AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 28783/95

                      by Ariko HARRON and Jessica ALAYO

                      against Sweden

     The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

7 March 1996, the following members being present:

           MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 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

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 E. KONSTANTINOV

                 D. SVÁBY

                 G. RESS

                 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 22 September 1995

by Ariko Harron and Jessica Alayo against Sweden and registered on

28 September 1995 under file No. 28783/95;

     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 16 November 1995 and the observations in reply submitted

by the applicant on 4 January 1996;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1962 and 1963

respectively. They are citizens of Uganda. Before the Commission they

are represented by Mr. Robert Camerini, a lawyer practising in

Stockholm.

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

summarised as follows.

     The first applicant arrived in Sweden on 29 September 1991 and

applied for political asylum the following day. He was joined by the

second applicant on 17 May 1992, when she also applied for asylum.

     The first applicant gave the following statement in support of

his application. He had been active in a political organisation, the

Uganda People's Front/Uganda People's Army (UPF/UPA), since its

establishment in 1987 engaged in a struggle against Government troops.

Within the organisation, he had been responsible for the purchase,

storing and transportation of weapons and ammunition. In February 1988,

he had been arrested and ill-treated by the military police. He was

released after having bribed a Government official. In August 1991, the

military had uncovered an arms transport. Several participants had been

arrested and assaulted. Two of them had died as a result of the

injuries sustained. The first applicant had escaped. The military,

informed of his involvement in the UPF/UPA, had searched for him and

had also searched his home and office on several occasions. However,

he had managed to avoid being arrested. After the second applicant had

obtained a passport and a plane ticket for him in September 1991, he

had left the country via Entebbe airport on 28 September. After his

escape, he had been informed by the second applicant that the Ugandan

authorities were still coming to their home to look for him. By phone

on 18 January 1992, he had been told that the second applicant had been

injured on one such occasion.

     The second applicant provided the Swedish immigration authorities

with the following information. She had been a member of the Uganda

People's Congress (UPC), an opposition party, since 1980. She first

stated that the first applicant had been arrested and ill-treated by

the military police in July/August 1991. In a later statement, she

changed the date to July/August 1988. The first applicant had been

released after having bribed a person in the prison where he was

detained. In October 1991, after the first applicant had left the

country, the military had again searched for him. The military had

apprehended the second applicant and had questioned and sexually

assaulted her for a period of three weeks. After some time, some UPC

members had helped her to flee to her parents' home. At Christmas time

1991, the military had come to the parents' home and sexually assaulted

the women of the family, including the second applicant. Thereafter,

she had stayed at a UPC camp where, in January 1992, she had been

injured during an attack by the military. She had left the country via

Entebbe airport. Her passport had been obtained by the UPC. It was

predated so as to avoid suspicions that she was fleeing.

     By decision of 5 April 1993, the National Immigration Board

(Statens invandrarverk) rejected the asylum applications and ordered

the applicants' expulsion. It called into question the credibility of

the information provided by the applicants. It noted, inter alia, that

the second applicant had given different dates for the first

applicant's detention and that the applicants' statements regarding the

second applicant's whereabouts and injury in January 1992 were

contradictory. Having regard to the fact that the first applicant had

used his own passport when leaving Uganda, the Board further found that

his allegations concerning the Ugandan authorities' interest in him

were considerably exaggerated. Moreover, his passport was issued in

March 1991 and not, as alleged, in September 1991. With respect to the

second applicant, the Board noted that her passport had been checked

at departure and that it contained a tax clearance stamp dated

10 April 1992. The Board, therefore, did not believe that she had left

from Entebbe airport.

     The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlännings-

nämnden). They maintained the statements given to the Immigration

Board. In addition, the first applicant submitted a statement in which

he described the treatment he had allegedly received in two military

prisons in Uganda after his arrest by the military police in 1988. The

statement read, inter alia, as follows:

     "... [W]hilst in Mbuya barracks, I was led to an

     interrogation room where I was asked many questions ... and

     was pushed to another room where severe torture took me by

     surprise. [I was] ordered to sit down. Immediately, the

     ropes were fastened to my legs with the hand lever. I was

     then raised upside down like a cow ready to be skinned.

     They bounced me to the wall while others were busy asking

     me queries randomly.

     Due to the legs and head injuries sustained from the

     torture exercise, which was always done twice a day for

     about three days, I was then transferred to another prison

     called Basiima House, which is the headquarters for

     intelligence service and is located a few kilometres from

     Mbuya barracks. ...

     In the morning, I was called out for an investigation,

     taken to a room and before I entered I was told to leave my

     clothes by the doorway. In this room I was told to sit on

     one hollow chair and it was positioned such that I sat in

     a squat. Two men later came and fastened me on to it. Under

     the chair was a hot plate which they turned on and the

     interrogation began. [Whenever] I screamed out due to the

     heat, they would tell me to co-operate and tell them the

     true information, but when I failed to do as requested they

     had to continue with the exercise. ...

     On the second day, when I was taken to the same room, one

     of the soldiers lit his cigarette and burnt me on the left

     hand wrist and fingers while the plate was heating my

     private parts. He went on and put the wire on top of the

     hot plate and later used it for burning me on the thigh and

     foot.

     ... [T]his exercise continued until the ransom of money

     (bribe) was paid and on the day it was paid I was still

     taken to the torture room where I was given some strokes

     and finally twisted my right hand and cut it with a sharp

     knife. Then I was later freed but with a lot of threats on

     my life. ..."

     The applicant further stated that, a year later, his uncle had

been tortured and shot to death by army officers who had discovered

that he was delivering ammunition to the rebels.

     In support of their allegations that they had been subjected to

torture and various other forms of ill-treatment, the applicants

submitted several medical certificates to the Appeals Board.

     In opinions dated 6 and 19 October 1993, Dr Erik Ståhl, a

specialist in forensic medicine at the Centre for Torture Survivors

(CTD) at the Karolinska Hospital in Stockholm, stated that the

applicants had healed scar formations on different parts of their

bodies which could originate from injuries sustained in 1988 (the first

applicant) and 1991 (the second applicant). The location and appearance

of the scars corresponded well with the first applicant's allegation

that he had been beaten, burnt and cut with different objects and the

second applicant's statement that she had been punched and beaten with

different objects. Dr Ståhl concluded that torture/ill-treatment may

well have occurred as described by the applicants. Before Dr Ståhl gave

his opinions, the applicants had been examined at the CTD on several

occasions.

     As regards the first applicant, a certificate prepared by

Dr Sten W. Jakobsson, the chief physician at the CTD, on 19 October

1993 stated that he suffered greatly from a very serious depression

which originated in his experiences in Uganda and the risks facing him

upon return. Dr Jakobsson concluded that the first applicant was very

credible and that there was a very high probability that he had been

tortured in Uganda.

     A further certificate concerning the second applicant had been

prepared by Dr Hans Peter Søndergaard, a specialist in psychiatric

diseases at the CTD, on 26 October 1993. He stated that the second

applicant had claimed to have been raped and ill-treated by members of

the armed forces, on some occasions in front of the applicants' two

children. According to Dr Søndergaard, she suffered, as a result of

this treatment, from a severe post-traumatic stress syndrome and was

in need of medical care. She could not be deported due to her state of

health.

     On 3 June 1994 the Appeals Board upheld the Immigration Board's

decision. It stated that the medical certificates were based on the

applicants' own statements and that, in the light of the partly

contradictory information supplied by the applicants, the injuries

discovered could just as well have originated in another way. Moreover,

the certificates did not support the first applicant's allegation that

his scrotum had been burnt. The Appeals Board concluded that it had not

been shown that the applicants had been subjected to the alleged

treatment.

     On 30 May 1995 the applicants lodged a new application with the

Appeals Board and requested that the expulsion order be stayed. They

submitted several documents which, allegedly, they had not been able

to obtain before.

     In a letter of 26 November 1991 addressed to the Chief of

Combatant Operations of the Ugandan army, the National Resistance Army

(NRA), Mr Patrick Karejeya, Director of Intelligence of the NRA, asked

for help to apprehend the first applicant, who had been identified as

the leader of the arms smuggling operations uncovered in August and

September 1991.

     In a letter of 16 March 1994, the assistant managing director of

the applicant's company asked the company's lawyers to take action

against the illegal occupation by the police of the company's premises.

The director stated that the reason for the occupation appeared to be

the political activities of the first applicant. In a subsequent letter

of 22 August 1994, the lawyers informed the first applicant of the

occupation and stated that, according to reliable sources, he was still

wanted on charges of arms smuggling. As he would face arrest and

persecution upon return to Uganda, he was advised not to return.

     According to an NRA document of 1 June 1994, the first applicant

was still wanted on account of his political activities.

     The applicants further submitted a letter of 31 August 1994 from

Rt. Rev. Bishop Geresom Ilukor of the Church of Uganda and an undated

letter from Mr M. Obwanga'moi, the Head of the Department of Veterinary

Physiological Sciences at Makerere University, Kampala. These letters

confirmed the applicants' allegations concerning their activities in

Uganda and their experiences of torture and ill-treatment. Bishop

Ilukor further stated that the first applicant's father had been

arrested, tortured and killed by the Government after it came into

power in 1986, that the whereabouts of the second applicant's younger

sister were unknown after she had been abducted by soldiers at the end

of 1992 and that the second applicant's parents had fled to Kenya

together with the applicants' children after repetitious attacks on

them by soldiers. According to Mr. Obwanga'moi, the first applicant's

brother had been murdered by army officers, as he had supplied the

rebels with arms. Both Bishop Ilukor and Mr. Obwanga'moi stated that

the police and the military were still searching for the applicants.

     The applicants also referred to a statement of 28 September 1994

prepared by Mr Emmie Gabantu at the UPF/UPA office in Kenya, certifying

that the first applicant had purchased and delivered weapons and

ammunition for the organisation. Mr Gabantu further stated that the

persons arrested in connection with the arms transport in August 1991

had named the first applicant as the person being in charge of the

transport. The NRA had thereafter been searching for him. Moreover, his

relatives and friends had been detained, tortured and killed for

failure to reveal information about him. Mr Gabantu also mentioned the

murder of the first applicant's brother which had occurred in early

1994 and the occupation by the police of the company's premises.

     In addition to the above documents, the applicants also submitted

new medical certificates to the Appeals Board in support of their new

application.

     In response to the Appeals Board's finding in its decision of

3 June 1994 that the previous certificates did not support the first

applicant's allegation that his scrotum had been burnt, Dr Søndergaard

and Dr Jakobsson stated, in an opinion of 24 August 1994, that further

examinations of the first applicant performed by Dr Jan Lapins, a

specialist in dermatology, revealed scars on the first applicant's

bottom that could well have been caused by a hot plate positioned as

described by him in his statement referred to above. Dr Søndergaard and

Dr Jakobsson further stated that the first applicant had serious

suicide thoughts and blamed himself for his wife's mental problems and

her hatred towards him for having caused harm to them and their family.

The two physicians concluded that there was an imminent risk that the

first applicant would attempt to commit suicide and that there were

medical and psychiatric impediments to expulsion.

     According to a certificate issued by Dr Christer Härnryd, chief

physician at the psychiatric clinic at the Karolinska Hospital, on

24 May 1995, the first applicant had been admitted to the clinic on

19 May. On 20 May he had made a serious suicide attempt by

strangulation. Later the same day, he had been taken into compulsory

care under the Act on Compulsory Psychiatric Care (Lagen om psykiatrisk

tvångsvård, 1991:1128). According to Dr Härnryd, the first applicant

refused to eat and was under constant observation due to the great risk

of further suicide attempts. In these circumstances, it was deemed

wholly unacceptable from a medical point of view to expel the first

applicant.

     In an opinion of 14 June 1995, Dr Björn Wistisen, a specialist

in psychiatric diseases at the psychiatric clinic at the S:t Göran

Hospital in Stockholm, stated that the police had brought the second

applicant to the hospital on 5 June after she had been found lying in

the street, apparently unconscious. On 7 June she had had a violent

outburst during which she had hit out right and left, broken glass and

tried to escape from the ward. The same day, she had therefore been

taken into compulsory psychiatric care. According to Dr Wistisen, she

was psychotic, suffered from a severe depression and was inclined to

make a suicide attempt. As from 10 June, she was under special

observation as she was suspected of preparing to hang herself.

According to her medical records, she had, on 31 August 1994, thrown

herself in front of a motorcycle, probably in an attempt to commit

suicide.

     By decision of 1 June 1995, the Appeals Board stayed the

expulsion orders. Later, it requested the opinion of Dr Ingemar Sjödin,

a specialist in psychiatric diseases at the psychiatric clinic at the

University Hospital in Linköping. He is one of the physicians normally

consulted by the immigration authorities in cases of the present kind

(förtroendeläkare).

     After having studied the above medical certificates, the

applicants' medical journals, their applications and statements and

other documents included in the files of the immigration authorities

and having also examined the applicants on 13 July 1995, Dr Sjödin

delivered his opinion on 18 July. He found that the previous

examinations of the applicants had been carried out by well-qualified

physicians and that their opinions were well-founded. Moreover, the

symptoms observed by the physicians were typical of post-traumatic

stress syndromes. Dr Sjödin made the following assessment:

     "[The applicants] suffer from well-documented and serious

     mental disturbances which in both cases have necessitated

     institutional compulsory psychiatric care in accordance

     with the Act on Compulsory Psychiatric Care, especially in

     order to prevent suicide attempts. The present clinical

     picture is regarded as an aggravation due to immediate

     stress ... and a previously acquired post-traumatic stress

     syndrome probably based on fears that they will be killed

     if returned to [Uganda] and on their well-documented

     previous exposure to ill-treatment/torture including sexual

     abuse. I find nothing in the documentation to contravene

     such a conclusion.

     As regards [the second applicant], the course of events

     indicates an aggravation of the post-traumatic stress

     syndrome and a lingering depression with, at least during

     the period in care, frequently occurring outbursts of

     anxiety characterised by self-destructive and impulsive

     acts of a psychotic nature which have required extreme

     efforts on the part of the medical staff in order to

     prevent the patient from harming herself or the personnel.

     During the last week, the symptoms have been soothed by

     heavy anti-psychotic medicine.

     As regards [the first applicant], the course of events has

     been similar although it has not been characterised by the

     same intensity and frequency with respect to the impulsive

     acts but rather by a regressive development. ..."

     Dr Sjödin found that the expulsion of the applicants required

special efforts including the assistance of qualified psychiatric staff

during the actual deportation and the possibility to give medicine

injections and to place the applicants in straps. Although this was

medically possible, Dr Sjödin concluded that it was unethical and in

conflict with basic humanitarian considerations. In his opinion, there

was a relative impediment to expulsion. He further stated that, if the

deportation was carried out, the applicants could sustain permanent

physical and mental injuries. He estimated that the applicants were in

need of qualified psychiatric care during the following 6-12 months.

     On 15 August 1995 the applicants' representative submitted

observations on the opinion of Dr Sjödin. The representative stated

that the first applicant had again tried to commit suicide and was

under constant observation due to the imminent risk of further suicide

attempts. According to Dr Erik Jönsson, chief physician at the

psychiatric clinic at the Karolinska Hospital, the first applicant had

tried to hang himself in the shower on 28 July. He had also repeatedly

banged his head on a wall. After having received treatment on a

voluntary basis for some time, he had therefore been under compulsory

care between 28 and 31 July. Thereafter, the care was again given with

the first applicant's consent. As regards the second applicant, Dr

Wistisen had stated that the she was still self-destructive and might

try to commit suicide. Recalling their previous submissions and the

documents already available to the Appeals Board, the applicants

therefore claimed that there were both political and humanitarian

reasons for granting them residence permits. The deterioration of their

mental state and their suicide attempts were allegedly a result of the

persecution and torture they had previously been subjected to in Uganda

and their fears of further such treatment and execution upon return.

     On 8 September 1995 the Appeals Board, by two votes to one,

rejected the applicants' new application. It found that the new

information concerning the applicants' political activities did not

give reason for the Board to change its previous assessment. The

applicants were therefore not entitled to asylum. As regards the

humanitarian aspects of the case, the Board found that they were all

related to the political reasons invoked by the applicants. Having

found that the applicants' statements with regard to their political

activities lacked credibility, the Board considered that their present

state of health must have been caused by other factors. The Board

therefore concluded that there were no impediments on humanitarian

grounds to the expulsion of the applicants. The Board further stated

that the expulsion, if necessary, should be carried out with the

assistance of the physicians responsible for the care of the

applicants.

     The chairman of the Appeals Board disagreed with the decision.

In his dissenting opinion, he recalled Dr Sjödin's opinion that the

applicants suffered from well-documented and serious mental

disturbances which had necessitated institutional compulsory

psychiatric care, especially in order to prevent suicide attempts, and

that they could sustain permanent physical and mental injuries if

expelled. The chairman found that this opinion was confirmed by the

other medical evidence in the case. He thus considered that there were

humanitarian reasons not to expel the applicants and that they should

be granted permanent residence permits.

     After the Commission had indicated to the respondent Government,

pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was

desirable not to deport the applicants until the Commission had had an

opportunity to examine the present application, the National

Immigration Board, by decision of 4 October 1995, stayed the

enforcement of the expulsion order pending the Commission's decision

on the admissibility of the application.

     The applicants are at present in hiding in Sweden.

COMPLAINT

     The applicants claim that their expulsion to Uganda would violate

Article 3 of the Convention.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

     The application was introduced on 22 September and registered on

28 September 1995.

     On 27 September 1995 the President of 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

applicants to Uganda until the Commission had had an opportunity to

examine the application. The President further decided, in accordance

with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to communicate the

application to the respondent Government.

     By decisions of 26 October and 7 December 1995 and

25 January 1996, the Commission prolonged the indication under Rule 36,

ultimately until 8 March 1996.

     The Government's observations were submitted on 16 November 1995

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

applicants replied on 4 January 1996, also after an extension of the

time-limit.

THE LAW

     The applicants complain of their imminent expulsion to Uganda.

They invoke 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."

     The Government submit that the application should be declared

inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. As regards the

applicants' fears of political persecution, the Government maintain

that, according to the Government's sources, there seems to have been

a considerable improvement in Uganda during recent years with regard

to the overall security in the country. There has been a general and

considerable decline in human rights violations. Allegedly, there is

no longer a risk of persecution on account of membership in a

particular movement or political party. According to its Country

Reports on Human Rights Practices, the U.S. Department of State has

concluded that, in 1993 and 1994, there were no known instances of

Government-sanctioned political killings or torture and no reports of

disappearances in Uganda. The Government note that the UPF/UPA, in

support of which the first applicant alleges to have been active,

called off its insurgency in January 1994, i.e. after he left Uganda.

The UPC, of which the second applicant alleges to be a member, is

thought to be the only political party that may threaten the popularity

of President Museveni's party, the National Resistance Movement (NRM),

in the elections to be held in 1996. Moreover, some of UPC's members

are included in the present Government.

     Furthermore, the Government share the misgivings of the Swedish

immigration authorities as to several aspects of the applicants'

submissions. Not only does it appear unlikely that the first applicant

would have been able to leave Uganda carrying his own passport if he

had actually been wanted by the Ugandan authorities on account of his

alleged involvement in the transportation of munitions in August 1991.

There are also inconsistencies with regard to the date of issue of the

first applicant's passport which point in the direction that his

journey to Sweden was planned in advance and was not connected with the

incident that took place in August 1991. There are further

inconsistencies in the information submitted by the applicants as

regards the second applicant's whereabouts and injury in January 1992

and the time and circumstances of the first applicant's alleged

detention and subsequent release from prison. Moreover, the notes found

in the second applicant's passport contradict her account of her

departure from Uganda. With respect to the applicants' allegations that

they have been subjected to torture, the Government note that Dr Ståhl,

in his opinions of 6 and 19 October 1993, has concluded that

"torture/ill-treatment may well have occurred", a wording which does

not rule out that any scar tissue or marks on either applicant's body

may have other causes.

     In the light of the above, the Government argue that the

political reasons invoked by the applicants must be considered to be

open to doubt. However, should the information supplied by the

applicants be correct, it is still not at all likely, considering the

stabilised political situation in Uganda and the improvement of the

human rights situation there, that the applicants would risk any

persecution or harassment from the present regime. The Government

therefore contend that substantial grounds have not been shown for

believing that the applicants would face a real risk of treatment

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

expel them is enforced.

     As regards the applicants' state of health, the Government

maintain that, when enforcing the expulsion, the police authority in

charge will take into account the applicants' health and find the most

appropriate manner for such an enforcement. Should the applicants'

health be such that expulsion cannot take place, the police is obliged

to notify the National Immigration Board of the impediments to

enforcement. Moreover, Article 3 (Art. 3) must be applied with great

caution in a case of the present character and in reliance on the good

will of the authorities of the State concerned not to deport

individuals where there are severe medical indications against such a

measure, for instance where there is a substantial risk that an asylum

seeker will harm himself or even commit suicide. The physical and

mental condition of the persons concerned at the time of their

deportation will be decisive. In this connection, the Government

maintain that some time has already passed since the last medical

opinions with regard to the applicants were issued and an even longer

period of time will pass until the Commission has examined the

application and the enforcement can take place.

     The Government are therefore of the opinion, in particular in

view of the improvement in the human rights situation in Uganda, that

the threshold under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention referred to

by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Cruz Varas and

Others v. Sweden (judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31,

paras. 83-84) will not be exceeded in the present case if the expulsion

order, if need be, is carried out in consultation with the doctors

responsible for the applicants' treatment.

     The applicants submit that their expulsion to Uganda would put

their lives and health at great risk. They allege that the opinions of

the physicians at the CTD in Stockholm show that they have been

subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Uganda on account of their

political activities and that, because of these activities and the

Ugandan authorities' interest in them, they risk further such treatment

upon return. Several incidents, including the occupation by the Ugandan

police of the premises of the first applicant's company, indicate that

the applicants still risk persecution in Uganda. Furthermore, the

developments in Uganda have not been as positive as alleged by the

Government. In 1995, the NRM Government again arrested suspected

dissidents in a manner which resembles the events that took place in

1991 and 1992. Moreover, guerilla warfare is still going on in the

country. The applicants have submitted Ugandan newspaper articles to

support these contentions.

     Furthermore, the medical certificates invoked by the applicants

contain evidence that there are clear and serious risks of suicide

attempts and permanent physical and mental injuries if the applicants

are expelled. All certificates have been prepared by the most renowned

Swedish experts in this field. The applicants' mental problems,

documented in the certificates, are allegedly related to the

applicants' experiences in Uganda. With respect to the Government's

contention that Dr Ståhl's opinion does not rule out that the

applicants' injuries may have other causes than torture, the applicants

maintain that forensic examinations are used to exclude certain

possible causes of injuries. Without having witnessed the actual

torture, a forensic specialist cannot make more conclusive statements

than those given by Dr Ståhl. His opinions therefore strongly support

the applicants' allegations. As regards the possibility that the police

authority will take into account any impediments to enforcement

relating to the applicants' health, the applicants submit that the

police is not competent to make such assessments. The applicants

generally refer to the medical certificates in the case, especially the

opinion of Dr Sjödin, the physician consulted by the Aliens Appeals

Board, and to the dissenting opinion of the chairman of the Appeals

Board.

     The Commission considers, after a preliminary examination of the

present complaint in the light of the parties' submissions, that it

raises questions of fact and law which require an examination of the

merits. The application cannot, therefore, be declared inadmissible as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for inadmissibility

have been established.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

     merits of the case.

Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission

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