Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 23579/94

by A.CH.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

11 March 1994, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

A. WEITZEL

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

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 21 February 1994 by

A. CH. against Switzerland and registered on 4 March 1994 under file

No. 23579/94;

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 facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows:

The applicant, a Moroccan citizen born in 1964, resides at Sion in

Switzerland.

The applicant's previous application No. 21134/93, not relating to

the present application, was declared inadmissible as being manifestly

ill-founded by the Commission on 13 January 1994.

I.

In 1985, while in Morocco, the applicant joined the clandestine

extremist leftist student movement Ilal Amam. He knew approximately ten

members of this movement and participated in various meetings. On 6

January 1988 the applicant was arrested and detained by the police for

24 hours for having been seen in a public place with a girl after a

certain hour, which was an offence under Islamic law. However, the

detention apparently served the purpose of questioning the applicant

about his political opinions. He was released upon intervention of a

policeman, the father of a friend of his.

From March to June 1989 the applicant participated in numerous

student demonstrations in Meknès. He organised one such demonstration

in March 1989. Between 27 May and 2 June 1989 certain students boycotted

the university examinations in order to protest against the dictatorship

in Morocco. As a result, security forces intervened at the university

and arrested numerous students. Later in June the authorities declared

that they would not undertake any further arrests during the period of

university examinations. However, the applicant was told by a friend

that the police were searching for him and he stayed with his brother

until the end of June when he attended the examinations. He then decided

to leave the country for fear of being arrested. On 31 August he

travelled from Morocco to Spain with his valid passport.

II.

On 2 September 1989 the applicant entered Switzerland where he

applied for asylum on 12 September 1989.

On 12 May 1992 the Federal Office for Refugees (Office fédéral des

réfugiés) refused the applicant's request for asylum as he had failed to

show that he had been politically active in Morocco. The Office

considered that the applicant had not convincingly presented the

developments at the university in 1989, in particular the student

demonstrations and the role he had played in them. The fact that the

applicant had participated in the examinations at the end of June 1989

contradicted his statement that he feared arrest. Moreover, the

applicant had left Morocco using the normal itinerary.

The applicant filed an appeal which the Swiss Appeals Commission in

Matters of Asylum (Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile)

dismissed on 11 January 1994. The Commission found that in his appeal

the applicant had merely reiterated his earlier arguments, and no

temporal link had been established between his alleged persecution in

January 1988 and his departure from Morocco in August 1989. It was also

unlikely that participation in student demonstrations should be a ground

for persecution as the applicant himself had stated that he had not

suffered any prejudice after organising one such demonstration in

March 1989.

The applicant has been ordered to leave Switzerland before

30 April 1994.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of his imminent expulsion to Morocco where

he risks being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the

Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that if he is expelled to Morocco he risks

ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

The Commission has constantly held that the right of an alien to

reside in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by the

Convention. However, expulsion may in exceptional circumstances involve

a violation of the Convention, for example where there is a serious and

well-founded fear of treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention in the country to which the person is to be expelled (see. No.

10564/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 262; mutatis mutandis European

Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No. 161, p. 32 et

seq., paras. 81 et seq.).

Insofar as the applicant relies in support of his submissions on

various press articles relating to the general political situation in

Morocco, the Commission further recalls that the mere possibility of ill-

treatment on account of the unsettled general situation in a country is

in itself insufficient to give rise to a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of

the Convention (see Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and others judgment of

30 October 1991, Series A No. 215, p. 37, para. 111).

The applicant has not provided any other document or evidence

confirming his allegations as to inhuman treatment in Morocco.

The Commission has therefore had regard to the decisions of the

Swiss authorities, in particular those of the Federal Office for Refugees

of 12 May 1992 and of the Swiss Appeals Commission in Matters of Asylum

of 11 January 1994. The Commission notes that the Swiss authorities

carefully examined the applicant's allegations. Thus, in its decision

of 12 May 1992 the Federal Office for Refugees considered that the fact

that the applicant had participated in the examinations in June 1989

contradicted his statement that he feared arrest. The Swiss Appeals

Commission in Matters of Asylum considered in its decision of

11 January 1994 that there had been no temporal link between the

applicant's alleged persecution in January 1988 and his departure from

Morocco in August 1989, and noted that the applicant himself had stated

that he had not suffered any prejudice after organising a demonstration

in March 1989.

The Commission does not find it unreasonable if the Swiss

authorities, in view of these considerations and other contradictions in

the applicant's submissions, concluded that he had not credibly

established that he had been persecuted on the grounds of his political

convictions.

As a result, the applicant has failed to show that upon his return

to Morocco he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment

contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. The application is

therefore 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) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

A.CH. v. SWITZERLAND

A.CH. v. SWITZERLAND

LEXI