The author of the communication, dated 13 April 1984, is M. F., a national of Chile, born 1960, at present residing in the Netherlands. He'is represented before the Committee by a Dutch lawyer.
The author states that after political persecution and detention in Chile he left the country on 26 July 1980 on a valid passport and that he flew to spain, where he resided until March 1981, when he travelled to Belgium and subsequently to Den Helder- in the Netherlands. On 1 June 1981, he filed an application for pOlitical asylum in the Netherlands. On 15 September 1982, his requests for a residence permit and refugee status were turned down by administrative decree on the grounds that he had not belonged to an opposition party, had been able to leave Chile without objection from the authorities and had sojourned in Spain and Belgium prior to entering the Netherlands. The author's lawyer appealed against the administrative decree on 22 October 1982, contending that the author had been a member of a resistance group and that the Chilean Government had a practice of inducing "undesirable elements" to leave the country. 'On 16 June 1983, a hearing took place before a Standing Consultative Committee for Alien Affairs of the Ministry of Justice and on 16 September 1983 the Deputy Minister of Justice by administrative decree rejected the request for asylum. An appeal was lodged against the decree on 14 October 1983, before an "independent judge" (name of court not given), but it appears that this procedure has not been concluded. The Deputy Minister of Justice, bypassing the appeal, ordered the expulsion of the author by
November 1983 at the latest. Thereupon the author initiated a separate court procedure against the State of the Netherlands, seeking an injunction against the expulsion order, at least until the appeal was decided. On 17 January 1984, in an interim jUdgement, the president of th,!! Court in The Hague stated that the author -213-
The author claims that the following provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been violated: article 6 in connection with an earlier suicide attempt (it is unclear how this claim is to be understood but it appears that the life of the author was at one time in danger, because he had taken an overdose of pills. He maintains, however, that it was never his intention to put an end to his life and that he had merely taken the drugs in an attempt to temporarily forget his misery); article 7, because the author's expulsion would now constitute cruel and inhuman treatment; article 9, because of the risk of being rearrest~d in Chile, if he is not granted asylum elsewhere; article 14, paragraph 1, because there is still a procedure pending (appeal lodged on 14 OCtober 1983) and the author's expulsion would deprive him of equality status before the court; article 17, paragraph 1, because the author lives in common-law marriage with his pregnant girl-friend, an Israeli national, who would not be admitted to Spain or Chile, so that expulsion would be tantamount to interference with his privacy and family life.
As far as can be seen two proceedings in the author's case (on separate issues) are still pending before the Dutch courts, namely, (a) the appeal lodged on 14 October 1983 bef~:e an independent judge against the decision of the Deputy Minister of Justice (of 16 September 1983) to reject the request for asylum and (b) the appeal lodged on 24 May 1984 before a Superior Court in The Hague against the decision of the Court of The Hague (of 15 March 1984) that the author's elaim that he suffers from a mental illness does not constitute a ground barring his expulsion.
The author does not indicate whether the same matter is being examined by another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Before considering any· claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee shall, in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, aecide whether or not it is admissible-under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant •
A thorough examination of the communication has not revealed any facts in substantiation of the author's claim that he is a victim of a breach by the State party of any rights protected by the Covenant. In particular, it emerges from the author's own submission that he was given ample opportunity, in formal proceedings including oral hearings, to present hi~ case for sojourn in the Netherlands. The Committee, accordingly, concludes that the author has no claim under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Human Rights Committee thE!refore decides: The communication is inadmissible. -214-