Lexploria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 October 1986, the following members being present:

MM C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

G. JÖRUNDSSON

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr F. MARTINEZ

Mr H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 29 May 1985 by

A.A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 22 April 1986 under

file No. 12109/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan, born in 1957, who at the time

of lodging his application was detained in H.M. Prison Channing Wood,

Devon, awaiting his deportation from the United Kingdom.

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

summarised as follows:

The applicant claims to have been an active member of the main

opposition political party in Pakistan, the Pakistan People's Party

(the P.P.P.). In 1977 he led a peaceful demonstration of some three

hundred people from his home town to Lahore, where arrests were made

by the police and the military forces. The applicant was arrested,

but managed to escape and live in hiding until 1982, working

underground for the P.P.P. In 1982 he states that he was arrested and

tortured along with two of his friends. In order to save his own life

and that of his friends he agreed to participate in a drug smuggling

incident intended to embarrass a leading member of the P.P.P. exiled

in the United Kingdom. Under surveillance by the Pakistani secret

police, he made contact with this person during a visit to the United

Kingdom in September 1982. He then agreed with Pakistani authorities

to return to the United Kingdom on 14 November 1982 carrying half a

kilo of heroin, being met at Heathrow Airport, London, by the

opposition figure in question. However the applicant was able to

advise that person by telephone, during a stop-over at Frankfurt

Airport, not to meet him at Heathrow. The applicant decided to try to

pass British customs with the drugs. He was, nevertheless, caught.

On 27 March 1983 the applicant was convicted of drug offences by the

Aylesbury Crown Court and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with

a recommendation for deportation. He was refused leave to appeal out

of time on 4 October 1984 (it is not clear whether he appealed against

the recommendation to deport). A deportation order was issued by the

Home Secretary on 27 March 1986. No appeal was possible against the

order.

The applicant applied for political asylum on the basis that he feared

persecution, torture and death if returned to Pakistan. He alleged

that his friends had been tortured and killed when the Pakistan

authorities had heard of his conviction and of his denunciation of the

authorities' involvement in the drug smuggling incident. He claims to

have received a letter from three policemen involved in this torture

and killing, who had blackmailed him into smuggling the drugs,

offering their testimony on his behalf, if the United Kingdom would

also grant them political asylum. (This letter is an unauthenticated

English translation, typed and unsigned.)

The Home Secretary refused the applicant asylum on 4 March 1986

because he was not convinced that the applicant's fears of persecution

were well-founded. The Government's reasons for this conclusion are

as follows (information provided on 23 July 1986):

"The applicant's case for asylum rests on the claim that his drug

smuggling activities were undertaken under pressure from the Pakistani

authorities to discredit an opponent of the military regime there. He

alleges that as a supporter of the Pakistan People's Party (P.P.P.) he

was detained and tortured by the authorities before being persuaded to

smuggle drugs into the United Kingdom. He was arrested at Heathrow

with the drugs in his possession. (The applicant) originally advanced

these claims as a defence to the charges during his trial. They were

not accepted by the jury which convicted him. The applicant has been

interviewed in connection with his asylum application and given every

opportunity to present his arguments. They have been carefully

considered, but the conclusion has been reached that he has not

established that he has ground to fear persecution if returned to

Pakistan.

In so far as the applicant suggests that he is at risk in Pakistan by

virtue merely of his membership of the P.P.P., the Government does not

accept that. Martial law was lifted in Pakistan on 1 January and over

the last twelve months there has been a general easing of the

restrictions on political activity. The P.P.P. is no longer banned and

in the case of a few districts, notably Azad Kashmir, it never was

proscribed. The P.P.P. has grown in strength since January. Its

leaders were released from detention and house arrest last year and

Miss Bhutto, the party leader, returned recently with a large group of

supporters. Her progress through Pakistan has been a great success

and it is understood that there have been no attempts to restrict her

activities in any way. The P.P.P. has attracted considerable public

support and can now be regarded as the major opposition party. It

follows that the Government do not regard mere membership of the

P.P.P. as a sufficient ground for granting asylum."

The applicant claims that even though martial law has been lifted

there are outstanding martial law charges against him and that, if

returned to Pakistan, he risks barbaric punishment, or hanging.

Moreover he states that the British authorities have failed to allow

him to substantiate his claims by releasing him from prison for a few

weeks to allow him to acquire documentary proof or by allowing the

three aforementioned Pakistani police witnesses to enter the United

Kingdom to testify on his behalf. Finally he points out that since

August 1986 the situation of the political opposition in Pakistan has

seriously deteriorated.

The applicant's appeal against destination was refused on

30 July 1986, as he was unable to show that any other country would

allow him entry. He was due to be deported on 8 September 1986.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his deportation from the United Kingdom

back to Pakistan constitutes a breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the

Convention because he risks persecution, torture and death in that

country.

THE LAW

The applicant has complained that his deportation from the United

Kingdom back to Pakistan constitutes a breach of Article 3 (art. 3)

of the Convention, because he allegedly risks persecution, torture and

death in that country.

Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention provides as follows:

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

treatment or punishment."

The Commission has constantly held that, although the Convention does

not guarantee rights, as such, to political asylum or freedom from

deportation or expulsion, a deportation may nevertheless raise issues

under Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention in exceptional

circumstances, namely where there are serious grounds to fear that in

the State of destination the person concerned will be subjected to

treatment contrary to this provision (see, e.g. No. 7465/76,

Dec. 19.9.76, D.R. 7, p. 153).

In the present case the Commission notes the applicant's claim to have

been an active member of the Pakistan People's Party, the main

political oppostion party in Pakistan, and that he was blackmailed

into drug smuggling by Pakistani Government agents to save his life

and that of his friends. However, it appears that this latter claim

was not accepted by the British jury which convicted him of drug

smuggling and the applicant has not submitted any objective or

significant evidence which might substantiate his claim concerning his

political activities or political persecution. Moreover, despite

recent unrest, the situation of the political opposition in Pakistan

at the moment does not appear to disclose an immediate and serious

risk for the applicant of ill-treatment, inconsistent with Article 3

(art. 3) of the Convention, as a purported member of that opposition.

In these circumstances the Commission finds unsubstantiated the

applicant's claim that he risks treatment contrary to Article 3

(art. 3) of the Convention if returned to Pakistan. The application

is, accordingly, manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

A. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI