AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 21649/93
by D. and Others
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
8 July 1993, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
F. ERMACORA
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
MM. F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 23 March 1993 by
D. and Others against Sweden and registered on 8 April 1993 under file
No. 21649/93;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the Government's written observations of 11 May
1993 and the applicants' written observations in reply of 3 June 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, D. and Others, are husband, wife and daughter.
The husband and the wife were born in 1965 and their daughter in 1991.
The first applicant is presently undergoing psychiatric treatment at
the hospital of Beckomberga, Stockholm. The other applicants are
currently living at Farsta. Before the Commission the applicants are
represented by Mr. Sten De Geer, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows:
Particular circumstances of the case
The first applicant is the son of a well-known Peruvian dissident
who demanded social justice for farmers in books and newspaper
interviews.
While unsuccessfully searching for his father the authorities in
1982 arrested the first applicant and kept him in detention for six
months without a trial. The police tried to make him reveal information
pertaining to his father's political activities, allegedly by torturing
him with electric shocks, by keeping his head in cold water, by beating
him with sticks and whips and by forcing him to listen to his step-
mother being tortured. As a result he still suffers from insomnia,
kidney problems and headache. He has scars on his back.
In 1986 the first applicant was again arrested and detained for
fifteen days and allegedly tortured, again without a trial. He was
accused of being a member of Sendero Luminoso, a guerilla movement.
In 1989 the first applicant was detained for fourteen days and
allegedly tortured during interrogations regarding his stepmother's
activities.
Between arrests the first applicant received telephone death
threats from the paramilitary right-wing group, Rodrigo Franco, which
the applicants allege is supported by the Peruvian Government.
Following the first applicant's release after the second arrest,
he and his wife moved around in Peru in fear of being persecuted. They
both claim to have been active members of the Committee of Relatives
of Political Prisoners and Disappeared Persons, an organisation
prohibited by the Peruvian authorities. Other members of the Committee
have disappeared. In particular, the first applicant has criticised,
in newspaper and television interviews as well as in letters to
international organisations, the authorities' lack of respect for the
rule of law and the treatment of arrested and imprisoned persons.
The first and second applicants allegedly managed to obtain
passports and leave Peru after they had bribed certain officials. They
arrived in Sweden on 30 March 1990.
On 6 April 1990 they requested asylum, stating that if they were
to be returned to Peru the first applicant would be subjected to
persecution and ill-treatment.
On 6 August 1991 the National Immigration Board (Statens
invandrarverk) refrained from deciding on the asylum requests and
referred the matter to the Government in accordance with Chapter 7,
Section 11 of the 1989 Aliens Act (utlänningslag 1989:529).
On 27 October 1991 a daughter was born to the first and the
second applicant.
On 7 July 1992 the National Immigration Board also referred the
daughter's case to the Government.
On 8 July 1992 the Government rejected the applicants' request
for asylum. The first applicant's stepmother and her daughter were
granted residence permits on humanitarian grounds.
In a psychiatric report of 15 October 1992 by Dr. Eliana
Arellano, a Spanish-speaking psychiatrist at the County Administrative
Council (landstinget) of Stockholm, the following is stated:
(translation from Swedish)
"The report is based on notes taken during [the first
applicant's] visits to our clinic between 26 April 1990 and
3 August 1992 and subsequent conversations, the latest on
9 October 1992.
[The first applicant] is a 27 year-old Peruvian man who
came to Sweden in April 1990 and has since then been
awaiting the grant of asylum. His stepmother ... and half-
sister were granted residence permits in the summer of
1992.
Interviews and notes show that [the first applicant]
belongs to a Peruvian family whose father seems to be a
well-known person active in an opposition movement in Peru.
...
At the age of sixteen [the first applicant] experienced the
dissolution of his family, his father having been forced to
go into hiding. [His stepmother] was subsequently
imprisoned, as the military wanted to find [his father].
During the same period [the first applicant] himself was
tortured ... in order to force him to reveal his father's
whereabouts. He was subsequently transferred to a prison
for minors and was released after six months ... following
which he could see his stepmother only on a few occasions,
either in the prison or at the mental hospital where she
was detained for many years.
In 1986 [his] father died in what the press called a
"massacre" in a prison in Lima.
[The first applicant] has been detained on two further
occasions, in 1987 and November 1989, the last time because
[the military] was trying to find [his stepmother]. This
detention gave him good reasons for fearing for his life.
He therefore requested asylum following a request lodged by
his stepmother. ...
[He] has now been waiting for a residence and work permit
for more than two years. Due to serious anxiety and
depression he has been given a place in a support group for
asylum seekers at this clinic. During the period he has
been a member of the group his state has varied. On several
occasions he has been offered conversations on an
individual basis. On one occasion [his] depression and
anxiety were serious and the risk of his committing suicide
was considered as great.
After the summer of 1992 [he] has only contacted us by
telephone as he has been fearing [an enforcement of the
expulsion order].
In connection with this [he] has reacted with symptoms of
paralysis and great anxiety, concentration problems,
inactivity and passivity. On 9 October 1992 he told me
about his present state and said that he, because of the
pressing situation, has been suffering from insomnia,
despite his previous medication. ...In connection with his
insomnia he has had flashbacks from his imprisonment and
torture at the age of sixteen and [now] strongly fears that
he will be murdered.
[He] cannot at present see any meaning in life, as his only
future, in case the expulsion order is enforced, will be a
certain, horrifying death. This reaction can thus only be
considered a natural one.
The flashbacks from [his] traumatic experiences, which he
used to be able to stand because of medication and the
support group, have now become more outstanding. [He]
suffers from post-traumatic experiences. At present the
suicidal risk is great..."
An opinion of 11 December 1992 by the Centre for Torture Victims
(Centrum for tortyrskadade) concurred with Dr. Arellano's report and
concluded that it seemed extremely unlikely that the first applicant
had not been subjected to torture. The opinion was based on a
substantial number of interviews with the first applicant as well as
an examination of the first applicant's teeth carried out by a forensic
ododntologist and an examination by a dermatologist of the first
applicant's skin. According to the latter opinion it could not be
excluded that the first applicant's scars had been caused by violence.
On 15 February 1993 the Commission declared inadmissible the
applicants' application No. 20547/92 as being manifestly ill-founded.
It left open, however, the question whether the first applicant's
expulsion would involve such a trauma that, as such, it could amount
to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. The Commission noted
that the aforementioned reports on his mental state had not been
submitted to the National Immigration Board.
On 23 February 1993 the applicants lodged, in accordance with
Chapter 2, Section 5 of the Aliens Act, a new request with the National
Immigration Board for a residence permit. They invoke the above reports
as well as a further report dated 23 February 1993 by Dr. Arellano
concluding that the enforcement of the first applicant's expulsion
would entail a great risk that he would suffer a nervous breakdown or
commit suicide.
On 24 February 1993 the Board suspended the enforcement of the
applicants' expulsion pending an examination of the first applicant's
state of health by a psychiatrist appointed by the Board, Dr. Anette
Voltaire Carlsson.
In her opinion of 9 March 1993 Dr. Voltaire Carlsson concluded
that the first applicant's mental state did not constitute an obstacle
to the enforcement of his expulsion. She noted that no serious attempt
to commit suicide had been carried out by him.
On 16 March 1993 the enforcement was further suspended until 22
March 1993.
In a further report of 23 March 1993 submitted to the Board by
the applicants Dr. Arellano refuted Dr. Voltaire Carlsson's opinion.
The applicants further submitted a report of 21 March 1993 by a
Dr. Marcello Ferrada-Noli, a Spanish-speaking psychologist at the
Karolinska hospital in Stockholm, refuting Dr. Voltaire Carlsson's
conclusion. Dr. Ferrada-Noli had been involved in the examination of
the first applicant at the Swedish Centre for Torture Victims.
A further joint report of 22 March 1993 by Dr. Sten Jakobsson,
Chief Doctor at the Swedish Centre for Torture Victims, Dr. Hans Peter
Söndergaard, a psychiatrist at the Centre, and Ms. Margareta Olsson,
Curator at the Centre, supported the views of Dr. Ferrada-Noli. They
had all been involved in the examination of the first applicant at the
Centre. The opinion refuted Dr. Voltaire Carlsson's opinion and noted
it had been based solely on the first applicant's medical records and
on telephone conversations with Dr. Arellano and Dr. Ferrada-Noli. She
had never examined the first applicant herself.
On 23 March 1993 the Board, taking all the above reports into
account, rejected the applicants' request and revoked the order to
suspend enforcement. It ordered, however, that prior to and during the
enforcement of the expulsion, necessary consultations and cooperation
with medical expertise take place. No appeal lay against this decision.
On 2 April 1993 Dr. Arellano requested that the first applicant
be admitted to the psychiatric clinic of St. Göran's Hospital in
Stockholm as, in view of his post-traumatic stress syndrome and
depression, he was in immediate need of treatment.
On 16 April 1993 the first applicant was admitted to the mental
hospital of Beckomberga.
On the same day the National Immigration Board stayed the
enforcement of the expulsion order of 23 March 1993 pending the outcome
of the application before the Commission.
In a report of 12 May 1993 by Dr. Christina Lagerbäck, a
psychiatrist and Deputy Senior Medical Officer at the hospital, the
following is stated:
(translation from Swedish)
"This opinion is based on almost daily contact with [the first
applicant] since he was admitted ... as well as on discussions
with [the second applicant] and his stepmother ...
Prior to his admission [the first applicant] had already for
several months been isolating himself ..., partly fearing that
someone would report him in order to have him expelled, partly,
as a result of increasing ... apathy, hardly responding when he
had been spoken to. He had also isolated himself emotionally from
his closest relatives. He had been unable to take part in the
care of his one-year-old daughter, or to engage himself in
[activities with] her. He had been suffering from a constant
severe anxiety which occasionally would develop into panic. He
further suffered greatly from insomnia, repeated nightmares in
which he re-experienced his torture and imprisonment in Peru. For
several weeks before his admission [he] had been having suicidal
thoughts and had on several occasions put his suicide plans into
words. His wife and stepmother had therefore been watching him
day and night. Despite his difficult state his relatives managed,
first after several weeks, to convince him to seek care in a
psychiatric clinic.
In view of the suicide risk [the first applicant] was under
supervision around the clock immediately on his admission. This
surveillance, however, brought back memories from previous
traumatic situations when he had been guarded. He therefore
showed an extreme watchfulness and his anxiety and insomnia
increased. Despite sedatives and hypnotic substances [he] hardly
dared to leave his room for several days and hardly slept at all.
After five days, during which staff attempted to establish an
emotional contact with him, his anxiety diminished somewhat. In
order to relieve [him] from the surveillance, which had made him
re-experience previous traumas so intensely, and as he then was
showing no suicidal plans, the degree of surveillance was lowered
somewhat.
The day after a long conversation with [him], his wife and
stepmother, during which [his] desperate situation was discussed,
he attempted to commit suicide on the ward by trying to strangle
himself with an electricity cord. He was, however, spotted by
staff, following which we had to reinstate around the clock
surveillance despite the difficulties caused by this.
[The first applicant] is now showing symptoms, which apart from
[showing] his post-traumatic stress syndrome clearly indicate a
real depression as well as symptoms bordering on psychosis. He
is extremely inhibited and passive, does not speak spontaneously,
responds after long delays, is unable to respond emotionally even
to his closest relatives, often suffers from severe headaches and
has difficulties both in eating and retaining food. At night he
suffers from constant nightmares in which he re-experiences
previous imprisonment and torture to such a degree that he fears
falling asleep again. In the daytime he has had frightening
visual experiences, which are assessed as being hallucinations.
At present [he] has no hope for the future. He is convinced that,
if returned, he will face a certain and painful death, probably
together with [the other applicants]. He therefore sees a suicide
as the only way out. He has constant suicidal thoughts and
expresses intermittent plans to this end. He no longer has any
hope for his own life, but thinks that his death might increase
the possibility for [the other applicants] to obtain a residence
permit.
[The second applicant] is clearly also in a bad mental state. Due
to [the first applicant's] incapability she has for a long time
had to care for their daughter completely on her own. She has
further watched over him around the clock for weeks in [their]
home so as to prevent him from committing suicide. Now she is
living with the constant risk of losing her husband through
suicide. [She] has on several occasions contacted [the Child Care
Centre], asking for ... assistance in the care of [her] daughter.
In this situation [the daughter] runs a considerable risk of
being hampered in her development. Her father has been isolating
himself emotionally for months and now her mother is also
wavering.
In conclusion [the first applicant] is suffering from a post-
traumatic stress syndrome as a result of his difficult
experiences ever since his childhood and youth. At present he is
also severely depressed and on the border of being psychotic. He
is under treatment both by anti-depressants and neuroleptics, but
the first-mentioned have so far had no effect at all. In view of
the basic diagnosis, the reactive character of his depression and
his stationary desperate..situation, the possibility to treat the
depression with pharmaceutical preparations is considered very
small.
The suicide risk ... is considered as great. In 1991 he attempted
suicide and recently carried out another serious attempt. ... He
has no hope for the future, but fears it instead. He has constant
suicidal thoughts as well as repeated and often abrupt suicidal
plans. At present he accepts voluntary care, but should he wish
to leave the ward, I would immediately have him taken into
[compulsory] care in view of the great suicide risk. Should he
be expelled, the suicide risk would, if possible, be even
greater. Then there would exist a great risk that he would suffer
a severe mental breakdown.
I consider both [the first applicant's] and his [stepmother's]
accounts of persecution, imprisonment and torture to be very
plausible. I also agree in their assessment ... of the risk of
torture or execution following a possible expulsion to Peru.
I consider the possibilities [for the first applicant] to obtain
adequate psychiatric care in his home country for [his] severe
psychiatric disturbance as extremely doubtful. The obligation to
hide and constantly change one's place of residence in the fear
of torture, imprisonment and execution is ... not compatible with
the [need] to receive adequate psychiatric care. ..."
Relevant domestic law
A residence permit may be granted to an alien for humanitarian
reasons (Chapter 2, Section 4, subsection 1, no. 2, of the Aliens Act).
A request for a residence permit lodged by an alien, who is to
be refused entry or expelled by a decision which has acquired legal
force, may only be granted provided the request is based on new
circumstances and the applicant is either entitled to asylum or there
are weighty humanitarian reasons for allowing him to stay in Sweden
(Chapter 2, Section 5, subsection 3).
An alien may be refused entry into Sweden if he lacks a visa,
residence permit or other permit required for entry, residence or
employment in Sweden (Chapter 4, Section 1, no. 2).
When considering whether to refuse an alien entry or to expel
him, an examination must be made, pursuant to Chapter 8, Sections 1-4
of the Aliens Act, of whether he can be returned to a particular
country or whether there are other special obstacles to the enforcement
of such a decision. Any necessary instructions regarding the
enforcement of an expulsion order shall be given by the Government or
the National Immigration Board in their decisions (Chapter 4, Section
12).
If an expulsion order or a decision refusing entry contains no
instructions regarding its enforcement or if it is evident that the
instructions cannot be complied with, the enforcing authority shall
decide how to carry out the enforcement, provided it does not request
an indication under Chapter 8, Section 13 of the Aliens Act (Chapter
7, Section 2 of the 1989 Aliens Ordinance (utlänningsförordning
1989:547)).
The National Immigration Board shall review its decision, if it
is incorrect, in view of new circumstances or for any other reason,
provided it would not affect the alien negatively or be irrelevant to
him (Chapter 7, Section 10).
The National Immigration Board may, for special reasons, refer
a request for asylum to the Government together with its opinion in the
matter (Chapter 7, Section 11).
If the enforcement is not subject to any obstacles under, inter
alia, Chapter 8, Sections 1 and 2, an alien who has been refused entry
or who is to be expelled is to be sent to his country of origin or, if
possible, to the country from which he came to Sweden. If the decision
cannot be put into effect in the manner indicated in subsection 1 or
there are other special grounds for doing so, the alien may be sent to
some other country instead (Chapter 8, Section 5).
When considering a request for a residence permit lodged by an
alien to be expelled according to a decision which has acquired legal
force, the National Immigration Board (and in certain cases also the
Government) may stay execution of that decision. For particular reasons
the Board may also otherwise stay execution (Chapter 8, Section 10).
If the enforcing authority finds that enforcement cannot be
carried out or that further information is needed, the authority is to
notify the National Immigration Board accordingly. In such a case, the
Board may decide on the question of enforcement or take such other
measures as are necessary (Chapter 8, Section 13).
Under the 1991 Ordinance on Residence Permits in Certain Cases
(förordning 1991:1999 om uppehållstillstånd i vissa utlänningsärenden)
an alien who has been staying in Sweden for more than eighteen months
on 1 January 1992 may be granted a residence permit unless there are
special reasons for not granting such a permit. The Ordinance entered
into force on 1 February 1992.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain that, if they were to be returned to
Peru, the first applicant would be subjected to treatment contrary to
Article 3 of the Convention as a result of his present mental state.
In view of his previous experiences of torture in Peru his expulsion
to that country would cause a great risk that he would suffer from a
psychosis or commit suicide.
2. The applicants further complain of the absence of a right of
appeal against the decision of the National Immigration Board on
23 March 1993. They again invoke Article 3 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 23 March 1993 and registered
on 8 April 1993.
On 8 April 1993 the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of
the Commission's Rules of Procedure, that it was desirable in the
interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not
to return the applicants to Peru until the Commission had had an
opportunity to examine the application.
On 12 May 1993 the Commission decided to prolong the indication
under Rule 36 until 9 July 1993.
Following an extension of the time-limit, the Government's
observations were submitted on 11 May 1993. The applicants'
observations in reply were submitted on 3 June 1993.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain that, if they were returned to Peru, the
first applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment contrary to Article
3 (Art. 3) of the Convention as a result of his present state of
health.
Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment."
The Government submit that the applicants have not exhausted
domestic remedies, as required by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention, insofar as the applicants invoke circumstances different
from those examined in the decision of the National Immigration Board
on 23 March 1993.
On the merits of the case, the Government point out that the mere
fact that someone is suffering from an illness does not constitute
sufficient grounds for the National Immigration Board to revoke the
Government's expulsion order of 8 July 1992 and grant a residence
permit. A residence permit on humanitarian grounds could be granted
only if it were based on new circumstances not previously examined in
the case concerning the expulsion and if there were exceptional
humanitarian reasons.
The Government submit that, in concluding that the enforcement
of the expulsion order would not violate Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention, the National Immigration Board based itself primarily on
the expert opinions submitted to it, and found no humanitarian grounds
in the case. The Government contend that it is not unusual for
psychiatrists to reach different conclusions about the mental state of
an asylum seeker and the implications of a possible expulsion. The
Commission should rely on the good faith of the authorities in their
assessment of whether there are substantial risks that an asylum seeker
might, as a result of an enforcement, injure himself or commit suicide.
For this purpose the first applicant's mental state at the time of the
enforcement of the expulsion order will be decisive.
The Government refer to the case of Cruz Varas and Others v.
Sweden (Eur. Court H.R., judgment of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201,
p. 31, paras. 83-84) and argue that, as held by the Court in that case,
enforcement of the expulsion order in the present case would not attain
the threshold of severe ill-treatment proscribed by Article 3 (Art. 3),
provided that the instructions given by the National Immigration Board
in its expulsion order are observed. According to these instructions
medical staff should take part in the enforcement of the expulsion so
as to ensure that due regard will be had to the first applicant's
health. The police authority responsible for the enforcement is under
an obligation to see to it that the instruction is complied with.
However, in view of the fact that the applicants are in hiding no
special arrangements have so far been made to deal with the first
applicant's need for psychiatric treatment prior to and during the
expulsion. Nor can the Government obtain any guarantees that he will
receive psychiatric treatment upon his return to Peru and it is clearly
not for the Swedish authorities to ensure that the first applicant
receives such care. Should the applicants wish to have the first
applicant undergo psychiatric treatment there, it is evident that such
care would be available.
The applicants refute the Government's assertion that they are
in hiding. It is highly unlikely that the enforcing police authority
would be held responsible, should the instructions by the National
Immigration Board not be complied with. The Government's reference to
the possibility of the first applicant seeking psychiatric care in Peru
upon his return is theoretical, as he is not suffering from a mental
illness, but from a post-traumatic stress syndrome caused by his
previous torture experiences in Peru and his fear of again being
subjected to similar treatment.
The applicants contend that the enforcement of the expulsion
order would violate Article 3 (Art. 3) in view of the great risk that
the first applicant would suffer from a psychosis or commit suicide.
They refer, in particular, to the psychiatric reports of 15 October
1992 and 23 February 1993 by Dr. Arellano, the report of 11 December
1992 by the Swedish Centre for Torture Victims and the psychiatric
report of 12 May 1993 by Dr. Lagerbäck.
The Commission refers to the fact that under Article 26
(Art. 26) of the Convention it may only deal with a complaint once all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law. An applicant must make normal
use of remedies likely to be effective and adequate in respect of the
matters complained of (cf. No. 10978/84, Dec. 14.10.86, D.R. 49 p. 144
[155] with further references). The burden of proving the existence of
available and sufficient remedies lies upon the State (Eur. Court H.R.,
Deweer judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, p. 15, para. 26).
The Commission observes that, since the decision of the National
Immigration Board of 23 March 1993, the first applicant's mental health
could be said to have deteriorated further. The applicants in their
second asylum request have invoked that deterioration as an obstacle
to his expulsion to Peru. Although the National Immigration Board
subsequently stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order pending the
outcome of the present application before the Commission, it has not
proceeded to an ex officio review of the order in accordance with
Chapter 7, Section 10 of the Aliens Act.
In these circumstances, it appears to the Commission that a
further request by the applicants for a residence permit on
humanitarian grounds to the National Immigration Board would lack any
prospects of success. It cannot therefore be regarded as an "effective"
remedy for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. It
follows that the Government's objection under this provision must be
rejected.
The Commission has made a preliminary examination of the
applicants' complaint under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the
light of the submissions by the parties. It considers that it raises
questions of fact and law of such a complex nature that their
determination requires an examination on the merits. The complaint
cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention. No other reason for declaring the complaint inadmissible
has been established.
2. The applicants further complain of the absence of a right of
appeal against the decision of the National Immigration Board. They
point out that such a right of appeal was created as a result of the
settlement in the case of Bulus v. Sweden (No. 9330/81, Comm. Report
8.12.84, D.R. 39 p. 75), but that this remedy no longer exists. They
again invoke Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
The Commission considers that the complaint falls to be
considered under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention, which reads
as follows:
"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy
before a national authority notwithstanding that the
violation has been committed by persons acting in an
official capacity."
The Commission considers this complaint to be closely connected
to the complaint admitted above under Article 3 (Art. 3). It also
raises questions of fact and law of such a complex nature that their
determination requires an examination on the merits. The complaint
cannot therefore be declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention. No other reason for declaring the complaint inadmissible
has been established.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the
merits of the case.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy