by: L. M. V. R. G. and M. A. B. C. (represented
victim: The authors
of communication: 14 October 1996
The Committee against Torture, established under article
17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 19 November 1997,
Adopts the following:
Decision on admissibility
The authors of the communication are L. M. V. R. G. and M.
A. B. C., Peruvian citizens currently living in Sweden. They
claim that their forced return to Peru would violate article
3 of the Convention. They are represented by counsel.
The authors claim to have been politically active in Peru
both in the labour movement and in the political opposition.
Both state that they have been arrested, detained and tortured
in Peru and that they fear to be tortured again if they return.
The authors arrived in Sweden on 19 July 1990 and 17 December
1991, respectively. R. G.'s application for refugee status
was rejected by the National Immigration Board on 30 November
1992, and her appeal was rejected on 21 July 1994. B. C.'s
application for refugee status was rejected on 22 March 1992
and his appeal was denied on 21 July 1994.
The author's daughter was born on 19 December 1993, and their
son on 26 November 1995. Medical evidence in the file shows
that R. G. suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and
that this strongly affects the life of the family.
The authors' communication was transmitted to the State party
on 5 February 1997. The State party was requested not to expel
the authors while their communication was under examination
by the Committee.
In its submission of 27 June 1997, the State party has indicated
that the authors have submitted a new application to the Aliens
Appeals Board and have requested a residence permit for humanitarian
reasons, based on R. G.'s present health condition and the
family's situation in general. Counsel for the authors has
not contested that this application is still pending.
Before considering any claim in a communication, the Committee
against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible
under article 22 of the Convention.
Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes
the Committee from considering any communication unless
been ascertained that all available domestic remedies have
been exhausted; this rule does not apply if it is established
that the application of domestic remedies has been or would
be unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring
relief. The Committee considers that, even if the authors'
new application is not based on fear of torture but on
grounds, it is an effective remedy, since the Aliens Appeals
Board has the competence to grant the authors a residence
permit. In this context, the Committee notes that it is
for the Committee to review the grounds on the basis of
which a person is allowed to stay in a country, as long as the State
party fulfils its obligations under article 3 of the Convention.
The Committee therefore decides:
That the communication is inadmissible;
That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's
rules of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf
of the authors containing information to the effect that the
reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply;
That this decision shall be communicated to the authors and
to the State party.
in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text
being the original version.]