Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25387/94

by Roza KAS IBRAHIM and Nidal PARSOM

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 4 July 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 7 September 1994

by Roza Kas Ibrahim and Nidal Parsom against Sweden and registered on

6 October 1994 under file No. 25387/94;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are mother and son, born in 1942 and 1974

respectively. They are Syrian citizens and are presently in hiding in

Sweden. They are represented by Leif E. Rydberg, a lawyer practising

at Bergshamra.

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

summarised as follows.

The applicants have not been politically active in Syria. The

first applicant's husband, however, was a member of a forbidden anti-

government party, the Communist Workers' Party, for many years. The

first applicant did not know of his activities until late 1990, when

she overheard him and some visitors discussing a coup d'état. In

November 1990, members of the Syrian Secret Service broke into their

home searching for the husband. As he was not at home, the applicants

were assaulted and questioned about his whereabouts and activities. The

applicants have not had any contact with him after this incident. The

Secret Service, however, returned to the applicants' home on several

occasions. In 1992, the first applicant was arrested and brought to the

Secret Service's headquarters three times and the second applicant 13

times. On all these occasions, they were questioned, beaten and

threatened to be killed. On four occasions, the second applicant was

held at the headquarters for a few days.

After the incident in November 1990, the applicants received

financial support from the Communist Workers' Party. In September 1992,

they were contacted by a member of the party who helped them to leave

Syria. He supplied the applicants with plane tickets and forged

passports and helped them through the different checkpoints at Damascus

airport. The applicants left Damascus in early October 1992. They first

travelled to Sofia, Bulgaria, where they stayed for some time before

continuing to Sweden. On the journey from Bulgaria to Sweden, they were

helped by another person, who supplied them with new forged passports.

On 15 October they arrived at Arlanda airport, Stockholm, where they

met the first applicant's brother, who lives in Sweden. On 26 October

they applied for asylum at a police station in Stockholm. They were

asked to return for a police interrogation at a later date.

The interrogation took place on 11 November 1992. In addition to

the above facts, the applicants stated that, upon return to Syria, they

risk imprisonment and execution because of the husband's political

activities and because they, after having received help from the

Communist Workers' Party, are likely to be accused of being members of

the party. The applicants further stated that they had not applied for

asylum immediately upon arrival in Sweden as they had been afraid of

contacting the police and as the first applicant had suffered from

psychological problems.

On 13 December 1993 the National Immigration Board (Statens

invandrarverk), finding the applicants' story not credible, rejected

the applications for asylum and ordered the applicants' deportation to

Syria. The Board considered that it would have been practically

impossible for the applicants to make arrangements for their flight

from Syria if the first applicant's husband was involved in anti-

government activities. Having regard to the rigorous control at

Damascus airport, the Board found it unlikely that they would have been

able to use forged passports. The Board further noted that the

applicants themselves had not been politically active.

The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlännings-

nämnden). They maintained the information given to the Immigration

Board and submitted some doctor's certificates to the effect that the

first applicant suffered from depression and had threatened to commit

suicide because of her fear of being expelled to Syria.

On 10 June 1994 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the appeal,

agreeing with the Immigration Board's assessment of the applicants'

credibility. The Aliens Appeals Board also took into account that the

applicants had not applied for asylum immediately upon arrival in

Sweden and found, after having obtained a psychiatrist's opinion, that

the first applicant's psychological problems were not of such

importance as to constitute a ground for granting the applicants

residence permits.

Alleging that the first applicant had attempted to commit suicide

after the decision of the Aliens Appeals Board, the applicants later

lodged a fresh application for residence permits. It was rejected by

the National Immigration Board on 27 June 1994.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants claim that, under Swedish law, they have a right

of asylum. They refer to what they have stated before the Swedish

immigration authorities, inter alia that, upon return to Syria, they

risk imprisonment and execution because of the political activities of

the first applicant's husband and because they, after having received

help from the Communist Workers' Party, are likely to be accused of

being members of the party. They do not invoke any Articles of the

Convention or its Protocols.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 7 September 1994. On

14 September 1994 the applicants requested the Commission to stay their

deportation until the application had been examined.

On 14 September 1994 the President of the Commission decided not

to indicate to the Government of Sweden, pursuant to Rule 36 of the

Commission's Rules of Procedure, the measure suggested by the

applicants.

Following further correspondence with the applicants, the

application was registered on 6 October 1994.

THE LAW

The applicants claim that they risk imprisonment and execution

upon return to Syria. The Commission notes that their complaint falls

to be considered under 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 Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right to

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

political asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its

Protocols (cf. 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 the 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 is to be

expelled (ibid., p. 34, para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-treatment

is not in itself sufficient (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).

The applicants submit that they have been beaten and threatened

to be killed by the Syrian Secret Service and that they risk

imprisonment or execution upon return to Syria because of the political

activities of the first applicant's husband and because they are likely

to be accused of being members of the Communist Workers' Party.

The Commission recalls that in order to raise an issue under

Article 3 of the Convention there should be a specific risk of

treatment contrary to that provision. In the present case, the

Commission notes that the applicants have not submitted any evidence

relating to their allegation that they were beaten and threatened to

be killed by the Syrian Secret Service. Furthermore, the Swedish

immigration authorities rejected their asylum applications mainly

because their story was found not to be credible. The Commission finds

that the applicants' submissions to the Commission do not give reason

to call into question that conclusion.

In view of the above, the Commission finds no substantiation of

the applicants' claim that they would be subjected to treatment

contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention upon return to Syria.

Moreover, the Commission recalls from its previous case-law that

Chapter 8, Section 1 of the Swedish Aliens Act (Utlänningslagen,

1989:529) 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 (cf., e.g.,

No. 22325/93, Dec. 8.9.93, No. 24900/94, Dec. 22.2.95, and

No. 25129/94, Dec. 11.1.95, unpublished).

It follows that the application must be rejected as being

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 First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

Menu

KAS IBRAHIM ET PARSOM v. SWEDEN

KAS IBRAHIM ET PARSOM v. SWEDEN

LEXI