CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 octobre 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 October 1986, the following members being present:                      MM C.A. NØRGAARD, President                       J.A. FROWEIN                       G. JÖRUNDSSON                       S. TRECHSEL                       B. KIERNAN                       A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                       A. WEITZEL                       J.C. SOYER                       H.G. SCHERMERS                       H. DANELIUS                       G. BATLINER                       H. VANDENBERGHE                   Mrs G.H. THUNE                   Sir Basil HALL                    Mr F. MARTINEZ             Mr H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 29 May 1985 by A.A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 22 April 1986 under file No. 12109/86;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan, born in 1957, who at the time of lodging his application was detained in H.M. Prison Channing Wood, Devon, awaiting his deportation from the United Kingdom.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows:   The applicant claims to have been an active member of the main opposition political party in Pakistan, the Pakistan People's Party (the P.P.P.).   In 1977 he led a peaceful demonstration of some three hundred people from his home town to Lahore, where arrests were made by the police and the military forces.   The applicant was arrested, but managed to escape and live in hiding until 1982, working underground for the P.P.P.   In 1982 he states that he was arrested and tortured along with two of his friends.   In order to save his own life and that of his friends he agreed to participate in a drug smuggling incident intended to embarrass a leading member of the P.P.P. exiled in the United Kingdom.   Under surveillance by the Pakistani secret police, he made contact with this person during a visit to the United Kingdom in September 1982.   He then agreed with Pakistani authorities to return to the United Kingdom on 14 November 1982 carrying half a kilo of heroin, being met at Heathrow Airport, London, by the opposition figure in question.   However the applicant was able to advise that person by telephone, during a stop-over at Frankfurt Airport, not to meet him at Heathrow.   The applicant decided to try to pass British customs with the drugs.   He was, nevertheless, caught.   On 27 March 1983 the applicant was convicted of drug offences by the Aylesbury Crown Court and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for deportation.   He was refused leave to appeal out of time on 4 October 1984 (it is not clear whether he appealed against the recommendation to deport).   A deportation order was issued by the Home Secretary on 27 March 1986.   No appeal was possible against the order.   The applicant applied for political asylum on the basis that he feared persecution, torture and death if returned to Pakistan.   He alleged that his friends had been tortured and killed when the Pakistan authorities had heard of his conviction and of his denunciation of the authorities' involvement in the drug smuggling incident.   He claims to have received a letter from three policemen involved in this torture and killing, who had blackmailed him into smuggling the drugs, offering their testimony on his behalf, if the United Kingdom would also grant them political asylum.   (This letter is an unauthenticated English translation, typed and unsigned.)   The Home Secretary refused the applicant asylum on 4 March 1986 because he was not convinced that the applicant's fears of persecution were well-founded.   The Government's reasons for this conclusion are as follows (information provided on 23 July 1986):   "The applicant's case for asylum rests on the claim that his drug smuggling activities were undertaken under pressure from the Pakistani authorities to discredit an opponent of the military regime there.   He alleges that as a supporter of the Pakistan People's Party (P.P.P.) he was detained and tortured by the authorities before being persuaded to smuggle drugs into the United Kingdom.   He was arrested at Heathrow with the drugs in his possession.   (The applicant) originally advanced these claims as a defence to the charges during his trial.   They were not accepted by the jury which convicted him.   The applicant has been interviewed in connection with his asylum application and given every opportunity to present his arguments.   They have been carefully considered, but the conclusion has been reached that he has not established that he has ground to fear persecution if returned to Pakistan.   In so far as the applicant suggests that he is at risk in Pakistan by virtue merely of his membership of the P.P.P., the Government does not accept that.   Martial law was lifted in Pakistan on 1 January and over the last twelve months there has been a general easing of the restrictions on political activity. The P.P.P. is no longer banned and in the case of a few districts, notably Azad Kashmir, it never was proscribed.   The P.P.P. has grown in strength since January.   Its leaders were released from detention and house arrest last year and Miss Bhutto, the party leader, returned recently with a large group of supporters.   Her progress through Pakistan has been a great success and it is understood that there have been no attempts to restrict her activities in any way.   The P.P.P. has attracted considerable public support and can now be regarded as the major opposition party.   It follows that the Government do not regard mere membership of the P.P.P. as a sufficient ground for granting asylum."   The applicant claims that even though martial law has been lifted there are outstanding martial law charges against him and that, if returned to Pakistan, he risks barbaric punishment, or hanging. Moreover he states that the British authorities have failed to allow him to substantiate his claims by releasing him from prison for a few weeks to allow him to acquire documentary proof or by allowing the three aforementioned Pakistani police witnesses to enter the United Kingdom to testify on his behalf.   Finally he points out that since August 1986 the situation of the political opposition in Pakistan has seriously deteriorated.   The applicant's appeal against destination was refused on 30 July 1986, as he was unable to show that any other country would allow him entry.   He was due to be deported on 8 September 1986.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains that his deportation from the United Kingdom back to Pakistan constitutes a breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention because he risks persecution, torture and death in that country.   THE LAW   The applicant has complained that his deportation from the United Kingdom back to Pakistan constitutes a breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention, because he allegedly risks persecution, torture and death in that country.   Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention provides as follows:   "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."   The Commission has constantly held that, although the Convention does not guarantee rights, as such, to political asylum or freedom from deportation or expulsion, a deportation may nevertheless raise issues under Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention in exceptional circumstances, namely where there are serious grounds to fear that in the State of destination the person concerned will be subjected to treatment contrary to this provision (see, e.g. No. 7465/76, Dec. 19.9.76, D.R. 7, p. 153).   In the present case the Commission notes the applicant's claim to have been an active member of the Pakistan People's Party, the main political oppostion party in Pakistan, and that he was blackmailed into drug smuggling by Pakistani Government agents to save his life and that of his friends.   However, it appears that this latter claim was not accepted by the British jury which convicted him of drug smuggling and the applicant has not submitted any objective or significant evidence which might substantiate his claim concerning his political activities or political persecution.   Moreover, despite recent unrest, the situation of the political opposition in Pakistan at the moment does not appear to disclose an immediate and serious risk for the applicant of ill-treatment, inconsistent with Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention, as a purported member of that opposition.   In these circumstances the Commission finds unsubstantiated the applicant's claim that he risks treatment contrary to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention if returned to Pakistan.   The application is, accordingly, manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission            President of the Commission         (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)