R. C. v. Sweden

The complainant is L. J. R. C. , an Ecuadorian citizen, born in 1977, currently facing deportation from Sweden to Ecuador. He claims that he would be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Ecuador in violation of article 3 of the Convention. He is not represented by counsel. The facts as submitted by the complainant:

The complainant performed his military service in 1997 and was a military trainee from January until the end of May 2000. On 13 May 2000, while he was at the military base of Cononaco, he allegedly witnessed the torture and summary execution of two members of the guerilla group Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias del Ecuador- Defensores del Pueblo (FARE-DP) by members of the intelligence service of the Ecuadorian army. After this incident, he began to receive threats from members of the FARE-DP and members of the military. He told his brother, who was also a member of the military, about the incident. On 8 November 2000, his brother was tortured to death in a military camp. Before his death, his brother received threats from his supervisors. After his brother’s death, he continued to be threatened, and he was forced to move several times within Ecuador. As the threats increased he decided to leave Ecuador. He arrived in Sweden on 23 March 2001, and applied for asylum on 27 April 2001.

On 19 June 2001, the Swedish Migration Board dismissed the complainant‘s asylum application. On 2 September 2002, the Appeal Aliens Board upheld the Migration Board’s decision. The complaint:

The complainant alleges that he is at risk of being subjected to torture, ill- treatment, forced disappearance or summary execution if returned to Ecuador; his deportation in such circumstances would amount to a violation to article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits of the complaint

By submission of 11 December 2002, the State party acknowledged that all domestic remedies are exhausted. Nevertheless, it argues that the complaint is inadmissible because the complainant failed to substantiate his claim that he would be at risk of being tortured if returned to Ecuador.

The State party recalls that the complainant had two interviews with immigration authorities. In his first interview with the Migration Board, he stated that on 13 May 2000, when he was at Cononaco camp as a military trainee, he witnessed how the military tortured and murdered two members of the FARE-DP, who had been taken prisoners together with five other members. Two of the prisoners managed to escape and thereafter persecuted him because they wanted him to identify who was responsible for the torture and murder of their comrades. They also identified his brother, a soldier, telephoned him on 8 November 2000 and then tortured and maltreated him so badly that he died. Before passing away the complainant’s brother told a colleague that it was the complainant himself who was wanted.

In a second interview with the Migration Board, the complainant provided a more detailed account of the above incident. He said that FARE-DP was very active in the jungle in border areas and it tried to initiate continuous guerilla warfare. He visited his brother on 25 May 2000 and told him of the incident. Towards the end of June 2000, his brother began to receive threatening phone calls. He had found out that high-ranking officers had been involved in the incident. On 8 November 2000 his brother left his house and was assaulted and maltreated by two strangers. He was taken to the military hospital, where he died. His brother’s wife reported the death to the police, which was unsuccessful in investigating the incident. Members of FARE- DP continued to phone his brother’s house after his death, and the family had to move 1 2001 U.S Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and 2002 Amnesty International Report. According to the 2001 U.S Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In this respect the Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee also notes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not contested by the State party.

As to the complainant’s allegation that he would be in risk of being tortured by members of FARE-DP, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention, unless the non-governmental entity occupies and exercised quasi- governmental authority over the territory to which the complainant would be returned. The Committee notes that the complainant has not disputed the State’s party allegation that the Ecuadorian authorities do not tolerate FARE-DP activities carried out in border areas of the country, which they regard as criminal and link to a series of kidnapping and murder cases. Accordingly, the Committee decides that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. See complaint No. 191/2001, S.S v. The Netherlands, Decision of 5 May 2003, para. 6.4

As to the complainant’s allegation that he would risk torture at the hands of government forces if returned, the Committee notes that the information submitted by the complainant in substantiation of this claim remains general and vague, and does not in any way reveal the existence of a personal and foreseeable risk of torture to which he might be subjected in the event of his return to Ecuador. The information provided to the Committee by the complainant is at odds with his own account of the facts to the Swedish immigration authorities. He has not provided reliable information that he was tortured in the past nor that he had had any problem with the police or had attracted any interest from the military or the police while he continued to live in Ecuador, even after the events at Cononaco camp. The Committee accordingly considers that the threshold of admissibility has not been met in the complainant’s case, and concludes that the complaint, as formulated, does not give rise to any arguable claim under the Convention.

The Committee finds, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107(b) of its revised Rules of Procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded. Accordingly, the Committee decides that the complaint is inadmissible.

The Committee decides: a) that the complaint is inadmissible; and b) that this decision will be transmitted to the author and, for information, to the State party. ---- [Adopted in English, French, Spanish and Russian, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.]