Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 21606/93

by H.

against Sweden

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 30 June 1993, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second 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 15 February 1993

by H. against Sweden and registered on 31 March 1993 under file No.

21606/93;

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 applicant, born in 1962, is a stateless person from Lebanon.

He is of Kurdish origin. He is represented before the Commission by

Mr. Tryggve Emstedt, a lawyer from Gävle, Sweden.

The facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

The applicant has belonged to a prohibited political party in

Lebanon. As his name appeared on a list of wanted persons, he left the

country and arrived in Sweden on 2 October 1990. He asked for political

asylum, claiming that, if he returned to Lebanon, he risked being

killed by the Amal militia.

On 9 July 1991 the National Immigration Authority (Statens

invandrarverk) rejected the applicant's request and ordered his

expulsion from Sweden. His appeal was rejected by the Aliens Board

(utlänningsnämnden) on 19 May 1992.

The applicant being on hunger strike, the National Immigration

Authority decided, on 9 June 1992, that the execution of the expulsion

order should be suspended for one week.

The applicant submitted a new request for a residence permit

which was rejected by the National Immigration Authority on 16 June

1992. At the same time the Authority decided that the execution of the

expulsion order should no longer be suspended.

On 6 July 1992 the applicant was expelled to Lebanon.

It appears that on 8 July 1992 the applicant was arrested and

detained in Beirut. On 18 August 1992 the applicant's lawyer invoked

this fact in a new request for a residence permit in Sweden. In the

course of the following proceedings the Swedish Embassy in Damascus was

apparently instructed to enquire about the applicant's situation. An

official from the Embassy was allowed to visit the applicant in prison

on 24 September 1992. The official was then informed that the reason

for his detention was that the applicant had possessed a forged

Lebanese laissez-passer. He further reported that the applicant seemed

to be in good health, although he had been ill for a short time, and

that the applicant had received regular visits from his parents, wife

and children.

The report of the Embassy official makes no mention of any

allegations of ill-treatment. In a letter of 25 November 1992 which the

applicant wrote to his Swedish lawyer he states, however, that he had

been detained for some time at a prison for mentally disturbed persons

and that he had been threatened with torture. In the applicant's

lawyer's submissions to the Commission, it is also stated that the

applicant had claimed to have been tortured during his detention.

In December 1992 the applicant was released after having paid

considerable sums of bribes. He has however been summoned to appear

before a court but has not dared to present himself. Instead, he has

gone into hiding in Beirut.

The National Immigration Authority has not yet taken a decision

on the applicant's new request for a residence permit.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of his expulsion to Lebanon in July 1992

in spite of the risks to which he would be exposed there. He maintains

that these risks have materialised insofar as he has been detained and

tortured in Lebanon. He considers that the Swedish authorities did not

sufficiently examine the situation and complains that no decision has

been taken on the new application for a residence permit made in August

1992. He refers to Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains of violations of Articles 3 and 5

(Art. 3, 5) of the Convention in that he was expelled to Lebanon where

he claims to have been detained and tortured.

The Commission, which finds no issue under Article 5 (Art. 5) of

the Convention, has examined the application 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 the Convention does not guarantee a

right for an alien to enter or reside in a particular country. However,

a person's expulsion to a country where there is a substantial risk of

him being tortured or subjected to severe ill-treatment may raise an

issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

In the present case, the applicant states that he has belonged

to a prohibited political party in Lebanon, that his name appeared on

a list of wanted persons in that country and that he risked being

killed by the Amal militia.

The information which he has submitted to the Commission is of

a general character and cannot be considered sufficient to demonstrate

that, at the time of his expulsion, there existed a substantial risk

of him being subjected in Lebanon to treatment contrary to Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention.

It appears that after his expulsion he was detained for some

months in Lebanon, apparently because a forged travel document had been

found in his possession. The allegation that he was tortured during his

detention is in no way supported by the circumstances of the case.

Neither the report of the Swedish official who visited him in prison

nor his own letter to his lawyer refers to any ill-treatment or any

allegations of ill-treatment. Nor has it been explained under which

circumstances or for what purpose he would have been exposed to such

treatment.

The Commission therefore finds that the applicant's complaint of

a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention is 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 Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

Menu

H. v. SWEDEN

H. v. SWEDEN

LEXI