AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 20547/92
by D. and Others
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
15 February 1993, the following members being present:
MM. J.A. FROWEIN, Acting President
F. ERMACORA
G. SPERDUTI
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
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 19 August 1992 by
D. and Others against Sweden and registered on 26 August 1992 under
file No. 20547/92;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 17 September 1992 and 27 November 1992 and the
observations in reply submitted by the applicants on 5 October and
17 December 1992 as well as to the submissions of the parties at the
hearing held on 15 February 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are husband, wife and daughter. The husband and
the wife were born in 1965 and their daughter in 1991. They are
presently in hiding in Sweden. Before the Commission they 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 and the second applicant 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.
The first applicant is the son of a well-known Peruvian
dissident, Mr. A., who demanded social justice for the farmers in books
and newspaper interviews.
The first applicant's stepmother was imprisoned from 1982 to 1989
and allegedly tortured, suspected of being one of the leaders of a
guerilla faction. She never received a trial.
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 allegedly still suffers from
insomnia, kidney problems and headache and has scars on his back.
In 1983 the first applicant's father was imprisoned in the prison
of El Sexto, Lima, and accused by the Government of being one of the
leaders of Sendero Luminoso (the Shining Path). Although he was
acquitted of those charges he remained imprisoned in very bad
conditions.
Following complaints by the first applicant to the Red Cross its
representatives demanded that his father's conditions be improved.
Following a riot in the prison in 1984 he was moved to the prison of
Lurigancho. During a peaceful demonstration by prisoners in October
1985 Government troops effected a raid. The first applicant's father
received serious burns and several of his ribs were broken. Following
the authorities' refusal to give him medical care the first applicant
complained to the Government and the Red Cross. The Red Cross was then
allowed to enter the prison and give adequate care. The first
applicant's father publicly accused the Government of preparing a
massacre of political prisoners. In June 1986, following another riot
against prison conditions, over 300 prisoners were shot, including the
first applicant's father.
During a memorial service for the prisoners killed in the riot
the first applicant was arrested and detained for fifteen days and
allegedly tortured, again without receiving a trial. He was accused of
being a member of Sendero Luminoso.
In November 1989 the first applicant was detained for fourteen
days and allegedly tortured during interrogations regarding his
stepmother's activities.
In between his arrests the first applicant received by telephone
death threats from the paramilitary right-wing group Rodrigo Franco,
which the applicants allege is supported by the Government.
Following the first applicant's release from 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 interviews for newspapers and television companies 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.
On 6 August 1991 the National Board of Immigration (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 Board of Immigration also referred
the daughter's case to the Government.
On 8 July 1992 the Government rejected the applicants' request
for asylum. The decision was based on opinions obtained from the
Swedish Embassy in Peru and the Swedish Security Police, both
confidential. The Government stated:
(translation from Swedish)
"In view of the circumstances of the case and, inter alia,
the fact that [the first and the second applicant] left
their country lawfully, the Government consider that they
no longer run a risk of persecution in their home country.
Thus, they are not to be regarded as refugees under
Chapter 3, Section 1, no. 1 of the Aliens Act ...
It appears from the investigation that [the first
applicant] has been working for an organisation which,
according to what is known, has committed heinous offences
(Swe. grova övergrepp) in Peru. Even if [he] himself has
not participated in such activities he has been working for
an organisation whose methods can be regarded as comprising
activities falling within the scope of Article 1 F of the
1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
according to which refugee status is excluded. Thus,
regardless of whether [he] has put forward such reasons
against a return to his home country as mentioned under
Chapter 3, Section 1, no. 3 of the Aliens Act there would
exist particular reasons for not granting him asylum in
Sweden. Nor is there any reason to grant [the second
applicant] asylum under that provision. ...
[The applicants] shall therefore be expelled (avvisas) in
accordance with Chapter 4, Section 1, subsection 1, no. 2
of the Aliens Act and, in accordance with Chapter 4,
Section 14, be prohibited from returning [before 1 August
1994]."
On 8 July 1992 the first applicant's stepmother and her daughter
were granted residence permits in Sweden on humanitarian grounds.
On 23 October 1992 the applicants submitted a psychiatric report
of 15 October 1992 established by Dr. Eliana Arellano, a Spanish-
speaking psychiatrist at the County Administrative Council
(landstinget) of Stockholm. The psychiatric report reads:
(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.
..."
On 17 December 1992 the applicants submitted an opinion by the
Centre for Torture Victims (Centrum for tortyrskadade) concurring with
Dr. Arellano's report and concluding 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 odontologist 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.
The applicants deny any connection with Sendero Luminoso.
Relevant domestic law
Under Chapter 2, Section 5, subsection 3 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.
Under Chapter 3, Section 1, an alien may be granted asylum
because he is a refugee (no. 1) or, without being a refugee, if he
wishes not to return to his home country because of the political
situation there and provided he can put forward weighty reasons in
support of his wish (no. 3).
The term "refugee" refers to an alien who is staying outside the
country of which he is a citizen because he feels a well-founded fear
of being persecuted in that country, having regard to his race,
nationality, belonging to a special group in society or his religious
or political convicitons, and who cannot or does not wish to avail
himself of his home country's protection (Chapter 3, Section 2).
An alien as referred to in Chapter 3, Section 1 is entitled to
asylum. Asylum may, however, be refused inter alia if, in the case of
an alien falling under Chapter 3, Section 1, no. 3, there are special
grounds for not granting asylum (Chapter 3, Section 4).
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
it must be examined whether he, pursuant to Chapter 8, Sections 1-4,
can be returned to a particular country or whether there are other
special obstacles to the enforcement of such a decision (Chapter 4,
Section 12).
A refusal of entry issued by the National Board of Immigration
may be combined with a prohibition on return for a specific period of
time (Chapter 4, Section 14). In refusing entry the Government, too,
may issue a prohibition on return for a specific period of time
(Chapter 7, Section 5, subsection 2).
Under Chapter 7, Section 10 the National Board of Immigration may
review its decision, if new circumstances have emerged or for any other
reason, provided it would not affect the alien negatively or be
irrelevant to him. A review may take place even if an appeal has been
lodged against the Board's decision. If the Board has handed over the
file to the Government it may only review its decision, provided its
opinion is requested by the Government.
The National Board of Immigration may, for special reasons, refer
a request for asylum to the Government together with its opinion in the
matter (Chapter 7, Section 11).
An alien who has been refused entry or who is to be expelled may
never be conveyed to a country where there is firm reason to believe
that he would be in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal
punishment or torture, nor to a country where he is not protected from
being sent to a country where he would be in such danger (Chapter 8,
Section 1).
When a refusal-of-entry or expulsion order is put into effect,
the alien may not be sent to a country where he would risk being
persecuted, nor to a country where he would not be protected from being
sent on to a country where he would risk being persecuted (Chapter 8,
Section 2, subsection 1). An alien may, however, be sent to a country
as referred to in subsection 1 if he cannot be sent to any other
country and if he has shown, by committing a particular offence, that
public order and safety would be seriously endangered by his being
allowed to remain in Sweden. This does not apply if the persecution
threatening him in the other country implies danger to his life or is
otherwise of a particularly grave nature. Similarly, the alien may be
sent to a country referred to in subsection 1 if he has engaged in
activities endangering the national security of Sweden and if there is
reason to suppose that he would continue to engage in such activities
in Sweden and he cannot be sent to any other country (subsection 2).
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 Board of Immigration (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 Board of Immigration 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 granting such a permit. The Ordinance entered into
force on 1 February 1992.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complain that, if they were to be returned to
Peru, the first applicant would be subjected to ill-treatment contrary
to Article 3 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 19 August 1992 and registered
on 26 August 1992.
On 26 August 1992 the President of 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.
The President further decided, pursuant to Rule 34 para. 3 and
Rule 48 para. 2(b), to bring the application to the notice of the
respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations
on its admissibility and merits.
On 11 September 1992 the Commission decided to prolong the
indication under Rule 36 until 23 October 1992.
The Government's observations were submitted on 17 September 1992
and the applicants' observations in reply on 5 October 1992.
On 23 October 1992 the Commission decided to prolong its
indication under Rule 36 until 11 December 1992 and invited the
Government to submit supplementary observations. It further granted the
applicants legal aid.
Supplementary observations were submitted by the Government on
27 November 1992.
On 11 December 1992 the Commission decided to prolong its
indication under Rule 36 until 16 January 1993.
On 17 December 1992 the applicants submitted their comments on
the Government's supplementary observations.
On 15 January 1993 the Commission decided to hold an oral hearing
on the admissibility and merits of the application. It further
prolonged its indication under Rule 36 until 19 February 1993.
At the hearing, which was held on 15 February 1993, the parties
were represented as follows:
The Government
Mr. Carl-Henrik Ehrenkrona Assistant Under-Secretary, Ministry
for Foreign Affairs, agent
Mr. Erik Lempert Permanent Under-Secretary, Ministry
of Culture and Immigration, adviser
Mrs. Karin Nyman-Metcalf First Secretary, Ministry of Culture
and Immigration, adviser
The applicants
Mr. Sten De Geer Counsel
Mr. Ingemar Strandberg Assistant counsel
THE LAW
The applicants complain that, if they are expelled to Peru, the
first applicant will be subjected to ill-treatment contrary to
Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, which reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
The Government point out that the psychiatric report of 15
October 1992 was given after the issuing of the expulsion order. It was
not invoked in the applicants' request for asylum. Under Chapter 2,
Section 5 of the Aliens Act the applicants could lodge a further
request for asylum or a residence permit referring to new
circumstances. As no further request has been lodged the applicants
have, contrary to Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, not exhausted
domestic remedies. The Government further refer to Chapter 7, Section
10 as well as Chapter 8, Section 10 of the Aliens Act.
The Government further submit that the application is, in any
case, manifestly ill-founded, as there are no substantial grounds for
fearing that the first applicant would be subjected to torture or other
forms of ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention. Although he claims to have been tortured during his
detention this allegation has not been substantiated by means of
medical certificates or otherwise. Moreover, on all three occasions he
was released without any action being taken against him by the
authorities.
According to the information available to the Government the
first applicant is neither wanted by the Peruvian police as suspected
of having committed criminal offences nor were any attempts made to
prevent him from leaving Peru. The main purpose of his arrests appears
to have been to interrogate him in respect of his father's activities
in Sendero Luminoso as well as his stepmother's contacts with that
organisation. As his father was killed in 1986 and his stepmother has
been granted a residence permit in Sweden it is unlikely that the
Peruvian police would still have an interest in arresting and
interrogating the first applicant in order to obtain information about
them.
According to information obtained by the Swedish Embassy in Lima
there have been no indications of treatment contrary to Article 3
(Art. 3) of the Convention in the criminal proceedings instituted in
1992 against the leader of Sendero Luminoso, Mr. Abigael Guzmán, and
the other persons arrested together with him. The general opinion among
persons interested in human rights appears to be that the special
police force responsible for arresting Sendero Luminoso activists
suspected of having committed criminal offences (Dirección Nacional
contra el Terrorismo) is anxious to avoid being accused of having ill-
treated those persons. The Government further refer to the Peruvian Act
on Repeneters (Ley de Arrepentimiento) which entered into force in May
1992 and according to which suspected Sendero Luminoso terrorists who
turn themselves in to the Peruvian authorities may get a mitigated
sentence and identity protection assistance upon release from prison.
The Government emphasise that their examination of a request for
asylum takes into account the same factors as are relevant for the
application of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. Accordingly, the
present case has been carefully considered. In addition, having
received, in 1991-1992, a total number of approximately 1.300 asylum
requests lodged by Peruvians, the Swedish authorities have gained a
good knowledge of the situation prevailing in Peru. Out of 314 cases
examined in 1992 residence permits were granted in 216 cases, many on
humanitarian grounds.
The Government further submit that the applicants may leave
Sweden whenever they wish, thereby avoiding their expulsion to Peru.
The Government finally emphasise that out of a total of nineteen
decisions made on 8 July 1992 upon requests for asylum lodged by
Peruvian citizens only one resulted in a permit to stay in Sweden,
namely the case of the first applicant's stepmother and her daughter.
These were, however, granted residence permits for humanitarian
reasons. All requests were considered individually. Some Peruvians
whose requests were rejected have already returned to Peru voluntarily.
No arrests of those persons have been reported.
The applicants submit that the psychiatric report is being
invoked not in order to show that humanitarian reasons prevent their
expulsion to Peru but as further evidence showing that the first
applicant runs a substantial risk of ill-treatment should the
applicants be returned to that country. Domestic remedies have, thus,
been exhausted. Considering domestic remedies as exhausted only upon
enforcement of the expulsion order would in the applicants' view render
the protection under the Convention ineffective.
The applicants refute the Government's allegation that the first
applicant and the Committee of Relatives of Political Prisoners and
Disappeared Persons have contacts with Sendero Luminoso. They further
contend that the fact that the first applicant was released from
detention on three occasions cannot be construed as an indication that
their return would now be safe, nor does the fact that the first and
the second applicant managed to leave Peru mean that it would be safe
for the applicants to return. In particular, the first applicant's
advocacy of humane treatment of political prisoners and the rule of law
has put him in a dangerous position. This is confirmed by the strong
dissatisfaction expressed in public by the Peruvian Prime Minister as
regards the decision to stay execution of the order refusing the
applicants and other Peruvian asylum seekers entry into Sweden.
The applicants refer to reports by Amnesty International of May
and September 1992 as well as statements by that organisation
criticising the human rights situation in Peru. In particular, Amnesty
International has criticised the criminal proceedings brought against
Mr. Guzmán which it considers fall short of international human rights
standards. They further refer to a report of August 1992 by Americas
Watch as well as to media information that even lawyers defending
suspected Sendero Luminoso terrorists have been detained.
The applicants finally maintain that the human rights situation
in Peru has deteriorated since President Fujimori's "coup d'état" in
April 1992, persons even more frequently being reported "disappeared"
or killed. The deterioration can also be seen in the relaxation of the
legal requirements for being considered a terrorist and in the
introduction of the vaguely defined offence "apology of terrorism".
The Commission recalls that Contracting States have the right to
control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens. The right to
political asylum is not protected in either the Convention or its
Protocols (Eur. Court H.R., Vilvarajah and Others judgment of
30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 34, para. 102).
However, expulsion by a Contracting State of an asylum seeker may
give rise to an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and
hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention,
where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person
concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the country to which
he is to be expelled (ibid., para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-
treatment is not in itself sufficient (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).
In the case at issue the Government have emphasised the first
applicant's connection with Sendero Luminoso as a reason for excluding
eligibility for de facto asylum. The applicants have denied any such
connection, but maintained that due to the first and second applicants'
activities in Peru the Peruvian authorities have accused them of having
contacts with that organisation.
The Commission considers, however, that while the applicants'
allegation that the first applicant has previously been subjected to
treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) has found some support in
certain evidence submitted to the Commission, this in itself does not
suffice to conclude that he would now face a real risk of again being
subjected to such treatment should the applicants be returned to Peru.
In particular, no evidence such as a warrant of arrest or a summons to
appear before authorities in Peru has been submitted by the applicants.
Nor does it appear from the material obtained that the applicants would
be of any special interest to the Peruvian authorities. Thus, the
allegation that at least the first applicant is wanted by the Peruvian
authorities has remained unsubstantiated. In addition, the evidence
before the Commission concerning the applicants' background and the
general situation in Peru does not establish that their personal
situation is any worse than that of those Peruvians who have returned
voluntarily to their home country following the Government's refusal
of asylum (cf. ibid., p. 37, para. 111).
The Commission also attaches importance to the fact that the
Swedish authorities appear to have gained a considerable experience in
evaluating claims of the present nature by virtue of the large number
of Peruvian asylum seekers in Sweden. It notes that residence permits
have in fact been granted in numerous cases. Moreover, it should be
noted that the authorities are obliged to consider basically the same
factors as are relevant to the Convention organs' assessment under
Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. The Government's decision of 8
July 1992 was furthermore made after careful examination of the
applicants' case (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Cruz Varas and Others judgment
of 20 March 1991, Series A no. 201, p. 31, para. 81).
The Commission in particular observes that Chapter 8, Section 1
of the Aliens Act imposes an absolute obligation on the enforcing
authority in Sweden to refrain from expelling an alien, should the
evolution of the human rights situation in the receiving country
constitute firm reason to believe that he would be in danger of being
subjected to capital or corporal punishment or torture in that country.
In these circumstances the Commission cannot find that
substantiated grounds have been established for believing that the
applicants would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to
treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention on their
return to Peru.
The question could be raised whether, having regard to the
psychiatric report by Dr. Arellano of 23 October 1992, the first
applicant's expulsion would involve such a trauma that this as such
could amount to a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) (cf. supra, Cruz
Varas judgment, p. 31, paras. 83-84).
The Commission notes, however, that under Swedish law a further
request for asylum or a residence permit may be lodged with reference
to new circumstances. The applicants have admitted that neither the
psychiatric report of 15 October 1992 nor the report by the Swedish
Centre for Torture Victims of December 1992 has yet been invoked in
support of such a request. Thus, this possibility is still open to
them.
In these circumstances the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission Acting President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (J.A. FROWEIN)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy