AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 25387/94
by Roza KAS IBRAHIM and Nidal PARSOM
against Sweden
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 4 July 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 7 September 1994
by Roza Kas Ibrahim and Nidal Parsom against Sweden and registered on
6 October 1994 under file No. 25387/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are mother and son, born in 1942 and 1974
respectively. They are Syrian citizens and are presently in hiding in
Sweden. They are represented by Leif E. Rydberg, a lawyer practising
at Bergshamra.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicants have not been politically active in Syria. The
first applicant's husband, however, was a member of a forbidden anti-
government party, the Communist Workers' Party, for many years. The
first applicant did not know of his activities until late 1990, when
she overheard him and some visitors discussing a coup d'état. In
November 1990, members of the Syrian Secret Service broke into their
home searching for the husband. As he was not at home, the applicants
were assaulted and questioned about his whereabouts and activities. The
applicants have not had any contact with him after this incident. The
Secret Service, however, returned to the applicants' home on several
occasions. In 1992, the first applicant was arrested and brought to the
Secret Service's headquarters three times and the second applicant 13
times. On all these occasions, they were questioned, beaten and
threatened to be killed. On four occasions, the second applicant was
held at the headquarters for a few days.
After the incident in November 1990, the applicants received
financial support from the Communist Workers' Party. In September 1992,
they were contacted by a member of the party who helped them to leave
Syria. He supplied the applicants with plane tickets and forged
passports and helped them through the different checkpoints at Damascus
airport. The applicants left Damascus in early October 1992. They first
travelled to Sofia, Bulgaria, where they stayed for some time before
continuing to Sweden. On the journey from Bulgaria to Sweden, they were
helped by another person, who supplied them with new forged passports.
On 15 October they arrived at Arlanda airport, Stockholm, where they
met the first applicant's brother, who lives in Sweden. On 26 October
they applied for asylum at a police station in Stockholm. They were
asked to return for a police interrogation at a later date.
The interrogation took place on 11 November 1992. In addition to
the above facts, the applicants stated that, upon return to Syria, they
risk imprisonment and execution because of the husband's political
activities and because they, after having received help from the
Communist Workers' Party, are likely to be accused of being members of
the party. The applicants further stated that they had not applied for
asylum immediately upon arrival in Sweden as they had been afraid of
contacting the police and as the first applicant had suffered from
psychological problems.
On 13 December 1993 the National Immigration Board (Statens
invandrarverk), finding the applicants' story not credible, rejected
the applications for asylum and ordered the applicants' deportation to
Syria. The Board considered that it would have been practically
impossible for the applicants to make arrangements for their flight
from Syria if the first applicant's husband was involved in anti-
government activities. Having regard to the rigorous control at
Damascus airport, the Board found it unlikely that they would have been
able to use forged passports. The Board further noted that the
applicants themselves had not been politically active.
The applicants appealed to the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlännings-
nämnden). They maintained the information given to the Immigration
Board and submitted some doctor's certificates to the effect that the
first applicant suffered from depression and had threatened to commit
suicide because of her fear of being expelled to Syria.
On 10 June 1994 the Aliens Appeals Board rejected the appeal,
agreeing with the Immigration Board's assessment of the applicants'
credibility. The Aliens Appeals Board also took into account that the
applicants had not applied for asylum immediately upon arrival in
Sweden and found, after having obtained a psychiatrist's opinion, that
the first applicant's psychological problems were not of such
importance as to constitute a ground for granting the applicants
residence permits.
Alleging that the first applicant had attempted to commit suicide
after the decision of the Aliens Appeals Board, the applicants later
lodged a fresh application for residence permits. It was rejected by
the National Immigration Board on 27 June 1994.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants claim that, under Swedish law, they have a right
of asylum. They refer to what they have stated before the Swedish
immigration authorities, inter alia that, upon return to Syria, they
risk imprisonment and execution because of the political activities of
the first applicant's husband and because they, after having received
help from the Communist Workers' Party, are likely to be accused of
being members of the party. They do not invoke any Articles of the
Convention or its Protocols.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 7 September 1994. On
14 September 1994 the applicants requested the Commission to stay their
deportation until the application had been examined.
On 14 September 1994 the President of the Commission decided not
to indicate to the Government of Sweden, pursuant to Rule 36 of the
Commission's Rules of Procedure, the measure suggested by the
applicants.
Following further correspondence with the applicants, the
application was registered on 6 October 1994.
THE LAW
The applicants claim that they risk imprisonment and execution
upon return to Syria. The Commission notes that their complaint falls
to be considered under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, which
reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."
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 (cf. 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 the 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., p. 34, para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-treatment
is not in itself sufficient (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).
The applicants submit that they have been beaten and threatened
to be killed by the Syrian Secret Service and that they risk
imprisonment or execution upon return to Syria because of the political
activities of the first applicant's husband and because they are likely
to be accused of being members of the Communist Workers' Party.
The Commission recalls that in order to raise an issue under
Article 3 of the Convention there should be a specific risk of
treatment contrary to that provision. In the present case, the
Commission notes that the applicants have not submitted any evidence
relating to their allegation that they were beaten and threatened to
be killed by the Syrian Secret Service. Furthermore, the Swedish
immigration authorities rejected their asylum applications mainly
because their story was found not to be credible. The Commission finds
that the applicants' submissions to the Commission do not give reason
to call into question that conclusion.
In view of the above, the Commission finds no substantiation of
the applicants' claim that they would be subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention upon return to Syria.
Moreover, the Commission recalls from its previous case-law that
Chapter 8, Section 1 of the Swedish Aliens Act (Utlänningslagen,
1989:529) imposes an absolute obligation on the enforcement authority
in Sweden to refrain from expelling an alien should the human rights
situation in the receiving country constitute a firm reason to believe
that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to capital or
corporal punishment, or torture, in that country (cf., e.g.,
No. 22325/93, Dec. 8.9.93, No. 24900/94, Dec. 22.2.95, and
No. 25129/94, Dec. 11.1.95, unpublished).
It follows that 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 unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy