CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 7 juin 1990

.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 }    Application No. 15576/89   Hector CRUZ VARAS, Magaly Maritza BUSTAMENTO LAZO   and Richard CRUZ   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 7 June 1990)                           TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                   page   I.    INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-19) ............................     1        A.   The application          (paras. 2-4)   ......................................    1        B.   The proceedings          (paras. 5-15) ......................................    1        C.   The present Report          (paras. 16-19) .....................................    2   II.   ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 20-75) ..............    4        A.   The particular circumstances of the case          (paras. 20-64) .....................................    4        B.   The indications under Rule 36          (paras. 65-74) .....................................   18        C.   Relevant domestic law          (para. 75) .........................................   20   III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 76-129) ..............   22        A.   Points at issue          (para. 76) .........................................   22        B.   Article 3 of the Convention          (paras. 77-93) .....................................   22        C.   Article 8 of the Convention          (paras. 94-104) ....................................   25        D.   Article 25 para. 1 of the Convention          (paras. 105-128) ...................................   26        E.   Recapitulation (para. 129) .........................   30   Dissenting opinion of MM. TRECHSEL, WEITZEL, Mrs.   THUNE, MM. ROZAKIS and LOUCAIDES ...................................   31   Dissenting opinion of Mr.   SPERDUTI ..........................   32   APPENDIX I:      HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ..................   34   APPENDIX II:     DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY ............   36     I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.   A.       The application   2.       The applicants are Hector Cruz Varas born in 1948 (the first applicant), his wife Magaly Maritza Bustamento Lazo born in 1965 (the second applicant) and their son Richard Cruz born in 1985 (the third applicant).   They are Chilean citizens.   The first applicant has been deported to Chile and the second and third applicants are in hiding in Sweden.   The applicants are represented before the Commission by Mr.   Peter Bergquist, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.   2.       The application is directed against Sweden.   The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under- Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case relates to the expulsion of the first applicant to Chile and the threat of expulsion of the second and third applicants, as well as Sweden's failure to comply with the Commission's indications under Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure that it should not expel the first applicant before the Commission had examined the application. The applicants allege violations of Articles 3, 6, 8, 13 and 25 of the Convention.   B.       The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 5 October 1989 and registered on the same day.   The Commission decided on 6 October 1989, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application limited to the issue under Article 3 of the Convention.   6.       The Commission also decided, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Commission not to deport the applicants to Chile until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the application further.   The Agent of the Government was informed by telephone on the same day, at 09.10 hours, of the Commission's decision.   At 12.00 hours the Commission confirmed the said indication by telefax.   7.       By letter of 16 October 1989 the Government informed the Commission that the first applicant had been expelled to Chile at 16.40 hours on 6 October 1989.   The second and third applicants remained in Sweden.   8.      The Government's further observations were received by letter dated 27 October 1989 and the applicants' observations were dated 3 November 1989.   9.       On 9 November 1989 the Commission decided to invite the parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the application. The Commission further decided, in accordance with Rule 36 of its Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the Commission not to deport the second and third applicants to Chile and that the Government should take measures which would enable the first applicant to return to Sweden as soon as possible.   10.      At the hearing, which was held on 7 December 1989, the applicants were represented by Mr.   Peter Bergquist.           The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, and as advisers Mr.   Erik Lempert, Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Labour, and Mr.   Pär Boquist, legal adviser at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   11.      Following the hearing the Commission, on 7 December 1989, declared the application inadmissible as regards the applicants' complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and declared admissible the remainder of the application.   The Commission also decided to retain for further examination the issues arising from Sweden's failure to comply with the indications under Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.   12.      On 7 December 1989 the Commission heard Dr.   Sten W. Jacobsson as a witness in the case.   13.      On 15 December 1989 the Commission granted legal aid to the plicants.   14.      On 21 December 1989 the text of the decision on admissibility was communicated to the parties who were invited to submit certain additional observations and information.   The applicants' additional observations were dated 21 January 1990 and the Government's observations were dated 24 January 1990.   Further observations were received from the Government on 2 and 23 February 1990.   The parties were then invited to make final written submissions by 3 April 1990.   The applicants' observations were dated 5 April 1990 and the Government's observations were dated 30 March 1990.   15.      After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.   C.       The present Report   16.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A. WEITZEL                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   C.L. ROZAKIS                      L. LOUCAIDES           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 7 June 1990 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   17.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           (1)      to establish the facts, and           (2)      to state an opinion as to whether the facts found                 disclose a breach by the State concerned of its                 obligations under the Convention.   18.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.   19.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS   A.       The particular circumstances of the case   20.      On 28 January 1987 the first applicant entered Sweden.   He applied for political asylum.   On 5 June 1987 the second and third applicants came to Sweden.   21.      On 22 June 1987, the Police Authority (polismyndigheten) of Växjö interrogated the first applicant with particular regard to his reasons for requesting political asylum.   The minutes from the interrogation contain inter alia the following:   "The applicant stated that, concerning his religious beliefs, he belonged to the mormons.   His father had been the secretary of the local branch of the Socialist Party.   The applicant had not been the object of any persecution for that reason.   The applicant's sister sympathised with the Socialist Party, whereas one of his brothers was an active member of the Radical Party.   His second brother was an active member of MIR, as a result of which he had been suspended from university.   The applicant has two cousins who have fled to Australia for political reasons.   The applicant engaged in politics in 1968 when he became a member of the Radical Party's Youth Federation.   The applicant became a member of the Socialist Party in 1970 and remained so after the coup d'état in 1973.   In 1971 the applicant had also become a member of the FDR Party - the Revolutionary Workers' Front - where he was the Secretary until 1973.   The applicant worked in a group of five persons to create opposition against the Pinochet regime.   In 1976 they were arrested and brought to a military camp where they were held for two days and thereafter released.   In 1976 the applicant joined the mormons.   From 1976 to 1982 he remained passive politically but devoted his time to religious issues.   In 1982 the applicant moved to Alemana and started political activities together with a friend who was a member of the Socialist Party.   Apart from distributing leaflets he was active by distributing invitations for the Democratic Front in connection with demonstrations.   He has participated in demonstrations - one every second month - and in two general strikes (August 1985 and on 4 June 1986).   In December 1973 and in March 1974 he was arrested for transgressing the curfew.   In August 1985 he was arrested by CNI (Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Chile) for having entered a prohibited area on a bicycle.   He was released after four hours.   Apart from this he has not been the object of any intervention from the Chilean police or military.   On 4 or 5 January 1987 the applicant joined the Radical Party's local branch in a neighbouring town.   He did not engage in any political activities for this party.   The reasons for his leaving Chile were that he could not keep his house in Alemena where he lived with his family and his poor financial situation resulting from lengthy periods of unemployment.   The applicant could not meet the mortgage costs for the house and facing the threat of an enforced sale the applicant chose to sell the house."   22.      In a memorial to the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) dated 27 July 1987 the first applicant, through his legal counsel, commented upon the above interrogation.   He submitted that, when he had been arrested in the beginning of 1976 together with four friends, they had been ill-treated.   They were not allowed to sleep and were obliged to stand up naked.   One friend was beaten.   23.      On 21 April 1988 the National Immigration Board decided to expel the applicants and prohibited them from returning to Sweden before 1 May 1990 without the permission of the Immigration Board.   The Board also rejected the applicants' requests for declarations of refugee status and travel documents.   In the decision of the National Immigration Board the following is stated:   "Cruz Varas has invoked political reasons for staying in Sweden.   Cruz Varas has not invoked sufficiently strong political reasons to be considered as a refugee under Section 3 of the Aliens Act.   The circumstances of the case are further assessed not to be sufficient for granting a residence permit under Section 6 of the Aliens Act.   In the case none of the conditions are at hand which, under Section 33 of the Aliens Ordinance, can lead to the granting of a residence permit after entry into Sweden.   Cruz Varas' application for a residence and a work permit as well as a declaration of refugee status is rejected.   So is his application for an alien's passport.   Cruz Varas is not a refugee under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the legal status of refugees.   Cruz Varas' applications for travel documents is rejected.   As Cruz Varas is staying in Sweden without a residence permit he is ordered to be expelled under Section 38 of the Aliens Act.   He is prohibited, in accordance with Section 39 of the same Act, from returning to Sweden before 1 May 1990 without the permission of the National Immigration Board."   24.      The applicants appealed to the Government.   Mr.   Cruz Varas did not invoke any new circumstances.   He pointed out that he did not receive all letters sent to him from Chile and could not therefore submit any documents from Chile in support of the appeal.   25.      In an opinion of 27 June 1988 the National Immigration Board proposed that the appeal be rejected.   26.      The applicants' appeal was rejected by the Government on 29 September 1988.   27.      Before the Police Authority at Varberg the applicants alleged that there were obstacles against the enforcement of the expulsion order and requested that their case be transferred to the Immigration Board.   The first applicant was interrogated by the Police Authority of Varberg on 19 October 1988.   He said that he had new reasons to invoke in support of his application for asylum.   He had continued to work in Sweden for Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez (FPMR).   He had sold leaflets to support political prisoners in Chile.   CNI operated in Sweden and certainly had knowledge of the applicant's activities.   The applicant therefore ran the risk of political persecution, torture and possibly death, if he returned to Chile.   FPMR is a radical organisation which has actively tried to kill Pinochet.   The applicant explained that he had not worked for FPMR in Chile, but only after he arrived in Sweden.   His activities, which started in February 1988, had taken place in Varberg.   The group had started to sell a magazine called El Rodriguista.   28.      The applicants' request that their case be transferred to the Immigration Board was refused on 21 October 1988.   The applicants' appeal was rejected by the Immigration Board on 26 October 1988.   On 27 October 1988 the applicants again requested that their case be transferred to the Immigration Board.   On 28 October 1988 the Police Authority refused this request, and the applicants' appeal was rejected by the Board on 28 October 1988.   In his letter of appeal Mr.   Cruz Varas, through a new legal counsel, submitted that he had contributed to signed articles in the paper El Rodriguista and featured in other articles and expressed himself critically about the regime in Chile.   Mr.   Cruz Varas had hidden a person in his house in Villa Alemana.   This person was sought by the police.   This piece of information had been published in Swedish newspapers, a fact which implied a risk of political persecution of Mr.   Cruz Varas if he were returned to Chile.   In support of his appeal Mr.   Cruz Varas submitted a certificate by Juan Marchant dated 23 October 1988 in which it is said that he and his family were politically active in Grupo de Apoyo al Movimiento Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez in Varberg.   He further submitted copies of two newspaper articles dated 21 and 24 October 1988 concerning a demonstration in Varberg against the expulsion of the applicants.   In the articles it is said inter alia that Mr.   Cruz Varas had hidden friends sought by the police in his house in Chile and that in Sweden he was active for FPMR.   29.      By a decision of 21 October 1988, the Police Authority of Varberg decided that the applicants should be expelled to Chile on 28 October 1988 at 16.00 hours by plane from Landvetter Airport in Gothenburg.   However, the applicants did not appear in time for the departure and the expulsion could therefore not be enforced.   30.      By letter dated 30 December 1988 the applicants again alleged that there were obstacles against the enforcement of the expulsion order.   The allegations were submitted to the Police Authority at Varberg.   31.      On 13 January 1989 the Police Authority interrogated the applicant, his new counsel being present.   The minutes of the interrogation contain the following:   "Cruz wishes to add to his statements the following information especially with regard to the punishment he has been subjected to in connection with his being held prisoner in Chile.   Asked about the times and places of these imprisonments Cruz states that he was imprisoned the first time in Santiago in 1973.   He was arrested with all the others who were at the Codelco office (a large mining company) on an occasion soon after the coup.   They were taken to a military centre and badly treated.   Cruz has not talked about this earlier because he was of the opinion that the police in Sweden co-operate with the Chilean police.   He no longer holds this view.   Since the above-mentioned event lies far back in time Cruz was encouraged to begin his account by relating the most recent occasion on which he was subjected to persecution.   He then stated that in January 1987 he was stopped when he was walking along a street called Calle Troncal.   It was then that two men stepped out of a car and pulled him into a car which then drove to some sort of security building.   During the journey he was hit in the ribs.   He was taken down a long stairway and into some kind of investigation room.   He was photographed after he had removed his clothes.   He was hit, mainly in the head.   He was hung up by his feet and in this position he was also photographed.   He was asked where Luis Herrera was, and this Cruz was unable to answer.   Luis Herrera was chairman of the free humanist thinkers.   Cruz did not wish to relate more about the treatment on this occasion other than saying that they were going to shoot him later the same day.   He was blindfolded and after that Cruz felt that someone was pressing the barrel of a weapon against his body but no shot was fired.   Asked why they did this Cruz said that they gave as a reason that Cruz was a communist, which Cruz has never been. After Cruz had been scared by the incident with the weapon he was released and after that was treated kindly by a man who was at the same place.   The man told Cruz that things would be much better if he co-operated with the police.   When asked if they were in a police station Cruz said that they were in a security building.   They also mentioned to Cruz the names of the members of his family.   At 4 in the morning Cruz was driven away and was released after being held in arrest about 14 hours.   Cruz has not mentioned this incident earlier. Asked why he had not done so in spite of a number of police interrogations, numerous contacts with counsel and in spite of the fact that many documents with information on his person had been submitted to the authorities, Cruz said that he had been betrayed many times earlier and he could therefore not trust anyone.   In August 1986, somewhat uncertain about the exact date, Cruz was walking along a street in Valparaiso after having attended a neighbourhood committee meeting.   Cruz was on his way to catch a bus to Vina del Mar.   Four men came in a car, threatened him with a knife against his throat and captured him.   They were civilians in a civilian vehicle.   They travelled in the direction of Vina del Mar.   A black blindfold was placed over his eyes and then they took him out of the car and kicked him.   Cruz protected himself as well as he could by putting his hands over his head and crotch.   They insulted him too. They told him he should give up struggling against the Government.   They said they knew of Cruz and that he ought to stop; otherwise this could be the last day of his life.   Even his family was threatened.   These events took place in a building Cruz was taken to but he knows nothing about it because he was blindfolded.   On this occasion he was subjected to torture through electric shocks against his testicles.   He was even subjected to shocks by electrodes in the anus and testicles.    After having been subjected to the above Cruz was driven a bit along the road between Valparaiso and Vina del Mar before he was set free on the named road.   He was also near to being knocked down by a bus in connection with his being released from the car.   The whole sequence of events took place within a period of 15 hours.   About a month later Cruz found his dog, three years old, dead under such circumstances that he suspected that it was the CNI or Acha that lay behind it.   The dog had been impaled on a metal fence that surrounded the house where Cruz lived.   The conclusion Cruz drew was that he was subjected to this as a result of his activity in youth groups and friendship committees.   Cruz had worked for a democratic development of Chile.   Every time Cruz was arrested the 'police' knew what he had been working for. The interrogation so far has been translated to Cruz who subsequently wished to point out that the committees were neighbourhood committees and not friendship committees and he also wanted to say that the reason why he did not trust anyone was just because the police knew so much about him when they held him in custody.   Without the presence of the interpreter or counsel, in accordance with Cruz's wishes, he stated that on the occasion when he was arrested by persons he thought were from the CNI in 1986 he was also subjected to something else that he tried to suppress and which he finds very painful to talk about. After he had been tortured among other ways by electrodes in his anus and testicles, Cruz was placed on a bed lying face down and his hands and feet were tied to bedposts.   In this position one or more men attacked him sexually.   Cruz was at that point dazed from the previous treatment and cannot therefore say with certainty if there was more than one person.   (This section without the presence of the interpreter or counsel.   Cruz can make himself understood in Swedish.)   In addition Cruz has not been able to express the problems he has had as a probable result of the treatment he was subjected to.   He has difficulties eating with cutlery made of metal. These problems manifest themselves with pains in his teeth on every occasion that Cruz's teeth come in contact with a metal object.   This problem has become less intense but has been very intense earlier.   It has thus been a question of two different types of complaints.   Firstly Cruz has experienced general pain in his teeth and secondly he has had problems with metal objects.   Cruz first experienced the problem with his teeth after electric shock torture in 1973.   Cruz was subjected to this form of torture on a total of 4 or 5 occasions.   After the torture in 1973 Cruz also had many headaches.   He has also noticed that since then he has had lapses of memory.   Otherwise Cruz has nothing more that he personally wishes to relate other than the above.   When asked if he had anything to add on his political involvement Cruz stated that he had already accounted for it but that he could now present new documents which support the previous statements.   Three certificates were handed over.   One from Nicolas Reyes Armijo, Chairman of the Cultural Centre for Freedom in Belloto, one from Ricardo Poblete Munoz, co-ordinator in the organisation of neighbourhood committees, as well as a certificate from the Commission for Human Rights for Youths.   The above was translated to Cruz who thereafter had no wish to refer to further details in the case.   He has no objection to the above description.   Counsel Peter Bergquist wishes to point out that Cruz cried (tears in his eyes) when he talked abut the torture of January 1987.   Cruz also had emotional difficulties in talking about the incident when he was photographed naked hanging upside down.   Bergquist also wishes the minutes to include that the interrogator asked Cruz if the dog had been found poisoned and in answer to this Cruz related what he said above.   The reason for this comment is that Bergquist wishes in this way to illustrate the reliability of Cruz's statement.   From a witness psychology point of view it is otherwise easy just to answer yes to a question of this type.   In addition Bergquist wished to say that he has placed Cruz on the waiting list at the Red Cross Documentation Centre for Tortured Refugees in Stockholm.   The reason for this is to obtain thereby a credibility judgment on the statements about torture that Cruz has made.   Bergquist cannot say at present how long this will take but says that since Cruz is at the expulsion stage he will be given priority.   Bergquist's opinion is that Cruz ought to be able to be examined within a few months."   32.      The certificates mentioned in the minutes are a certificate dated 1 November 1988 by the President of the Centro Cultural "Libertad" in El Belloto stating that Mr.   Cruz Varas took part in the activities of that institution until he left Chile.   It is said that his psychological and physical integrity is threatened if he were to stay in his home country.   A second certificate dated 23 November 1988 by the Comision de Derechos Poblacionales Valparaiso states that Mr.   Cruz Varas was persecuted by the dictatorship from November 1983 to August 1986. He was active in the socialist youth department where he was the representative and leader of the revolutionary society for Libres Pensadores Humanistas "Artesanos de las Letras" in Villa Alemana.   The certificate also indicates that he had been arrested in Santiago and twice in La Serena - in November 1974 and September 1977.   He was threatened with death in Vina del Mar in 1983.   In 1986 and January 1987 he was arrested by civilians and severely beaten.   A third certificate dated 20 November 1988 by the Comision de Derechos Juveniles Quilpue contains similar statements.   33.      On 13 January 1989 the Police Authority transferred the issue of the enforcement of the expulsion order to the Immigration Board.   34.      On 13 January 1989 the Police Authority decided that Mr.   Cruz Varas should be placed under supervision which implied that he should report to the police twice a week.   As reasons for the decision it was indicated that Mr.   Cruz Varas could be expected to evade the enforcement of the expulsion as he had been in hiding for more than two months and his wife and son were also in hiding.   By letter of 2 March 1989 Mr.   Cruz Varas submitted to the National Immigration Board a medical certificate dated 20 February 1989 and issued by Håkan Ericsson, an Assistant Researcher at the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the Karolinska Hospital.   Mr.   Ericsson stated that Mr.   Cruz Varas had declared that he had been ill-treated in prisons in Chile and he had shown a deformation of his upper left collar bone, a scar on his left upper arm and a scar on the left of his chest.   35.      In an opinion dated 8 March 1989, the National Immigration Board, while transferring the case to the Government, expressed the opinion that there were no obstacles againt the enforcement of the expulsion order.   In its letter to the Government the Board stated inter alia as follows:   "Cruz Varas has had the opportunity on several occasions of presenting his case to the Police Authority and the National Immigration Board.   On these occasions he has given contradictory information and radically changed his story.   As to its contents certain information is remarkable.   This applies in particular to the couple's B investigation but also later. Even if a victim has difficulties to describe what he has been subjected to the Board finds, making an overall assessment and in the light of what has been submitted in the course of the handling of the case, that there is no reason to believe what has now been alleged.   The National Immigration Board maintains that such circumstances as referred to in Sections 3 or 6 of the Aliens Act are not at hand in the case.   In view of this the Board considers that there are no obstacles under Sections 77 or 80 of the Aliens Act against enforcing the expulsion order in relation to Cruz Varas."   36.      By letter dated 11 August 1989 the applicants submitted further documents to the Government.   Mr.   Cruz Varas invoked in particular two medical certificates: one by Mr.   Sten W. Jacobsson and one by Mr.   Hans-Peter Søndergaard.   The medical certificate issued by Mr.   Jacobsson, who is a doctor of forensic medicine (rättsmedicin), is dated 9 May 1989 and reads as follows:   "The patient Cruz Varas Hector born on 9 December 1948 has seen me on account of alleged torture in his home country.   He has told a story which has been simultaneously interpreted and which is accounted for in Annex I.   When examining the patient I have observed marks on the left collar-bone area and on the left upper arm which are accounted for in the examination protocol.   Due to lack of time no photographs have been taken but can be taken if requested.   In view of the above I make the following statement:   That the patient has said that he has been subjected to assault, that he has, as objective signs, shown, on the one hand, rest status after a collar-bone fracture as after blunt-ended violence, and, on the other hand, a typically rounded burn-mark on the inside of the left upper arm (the wound has, according to forensic medical practice, the typical appearance of a burn caused by a hot metal pipe), that he has subjective symptoms of troubles following genital torture, anal torture and sexual abuse in the anus, that, when he describes this, he reacts, in my experience, in such a way (crying, shaking) that it has to be assumed that he has experienced this, that, to summarise, nothing has been established which contradicts the assumption that Hector Cruz Varas has been subjected to such torture and sexual abuse as he alleges."   The annex to the certificate reads as follows:   "The patient presents himself first and then his father who was the secretary in the Partido Socialista.   They lived in the town El Salvador in Chile.   His father was arrested during the military coup in 1973 and was brutally tortured and released after two months.   The patient was then 24 years old.   He was also arrested and hit but, as he himself states, he was not directly tortured.   They moved to the town Lazalena.   The patient was also a member of Partido Socialista which was a party prohibited in Chile.   The patient was persecuted during the seventies and eighties.   His own home was subject to a search in 1981.   He was hit by the police and brought to a security house where his eyes were bandaged and he was hit by hands and was burnt on his left arm with a red-hot pipe.   He participated in a demonstration against UNIDADES DE FORMENTEO, a coin which the Government had introduced.   He was arrested later and was tortured by electrification.   In 1986 he was subjected to such torture on his genitals.   He was sodomised with an electrified rod which caused him great pain and one can see on the patient's face when he speaks of this torture that he was clearly in pain, he is near to tears.   He was raped several times which caused him to faint.   He was sodomised.   He is very pained by telling this and his upper lip shakes and he perspires profusely.   He has never told this to his wife and he now says 'I cannot take it any more'.   The reaction is very typical of self-experienced humiliating sexual torture.   Following a question the patient says that he has for a long time after this event had great problems of impotence.   He thinks that it has been better in Sweden.   He takes E vitamins against these problems.   In November 1987 his dog was found dead, hanged on an iron fence which surrounded his house.   There was a paper stating that this would happen to all communists.   It was signed HACHA which would be the same as it having been conducted by CNI. In 1987 he therefore left Chile.   I ask what would happen if he had to return to Chile.   The patient is then very upset and says that he cannot return and starts to cry; he is convinced that they will arrest him at the airport and continue persecuting and torturing him."   37.      The certificate issued by Mr.   Søndergaard, who is a specialist in psychiatric diseases and deputy chief doctor at the psychiatric clinic of the Karolinska Hospital, is dated 28 June 1989 and states the following under the heading 'Assessment':   "Thus a 41 year-old father from Chile who on several occasions has had his application for political asylum rejected.   From the investigation by the lawyer it appears that there are a number of events which indicate that he has for a long period of time been under strong pressure on account of his political activity.   He has further stated that he has been arrested on several occasions and in that connection been subjected to ill-treatment or assault.   From the manner in which the patient presents his story and the reactions which are partly described and partly revealed during the examination there are strong indications that it is a typical case of post-traumatic stress syndrome.   In the present situation these symptoms appear with a rather resourceful person who, irrespective of this, appears to be considerably shaken and where it is obvious that he is on the border of what he can compensate with his different resources. From the lawyer's examination it also appears that the family has suffered from his state, for instance the description of the behaviour of the son is typical of a so-called second generation phenomenon where the parents' psychiatric damage gives rise to problems in the family."   38.      In the letter to the Government of 11 August 1989, Mr.   Cruz Varas' legal counsel gave inter alia the following description of Mr. Cruz Varas' background:   "The appellant has been politically interested and active in diffferent left-wing organisations ever since the sixties and by the end of the sixties he was involved with MIR.   During the seventies he was active primarily in the Socialist Party. About 1983 he came into contact with people he believes belong to Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez.   He has taken part along with these persons in certain military activities.   As a result of his political work he was tortured in 1973, 1976, 1982, 1983, 1986 and 1987.   The reason why all these details are not found in the police interrogation is that the interrogation concentrated on events during the eighties.   At the end of the interrogation it is mentioned that he had been tortured four or five times.   When asked to account for his activity with the 'Front' he stated the following: some time during 1983 he made contact by chance with a person who was nicknamed the 'Gorilla' because of his heavy build and hair growth.   Hector knew the Gorilla from the seventies when both of them were active in MIR.   When they met again they had not seen each other for more than a decade but they immediately recognised each other.   They met at a parents' meeting in a school in Villa Alemana which the Gorilla's daughters attended.   Hector was at the meeting because his brother's children attended the school, but his brother could not attend the meeting.   When asked why his brother's wife did not attend instead, Hector replied that both parents thought he was good at attending meetings.   After a while his acquaintance with the Gorilla led to clear sabotage activities.   The Gorilla held a senior post at the town's Electricity Board.   Hector has a knowledge of explosives after having worked in mining.   Together they used explosive devices to destroy power lines around the town.   They complemented each other well: the Gorilla indicated the targets and planned the operations, Hector acquired the dynamite by travelling to the town of San Salvador where he has many childhood friends.   He was able to buy dynamite from his friends who work in the mine.   The dynamite was smuggled out by the workers.   This activity continued until some time in 1986.   After this Hector did not participate in any further sabotage operations since he felt he was under observation.   However he believes that the Gorilla continued the activities since they had a fairly large stock of dynamite.   He has also read in the newspapers about power lines being sabotaged after he had discontinued the activity himself.   The Gorilla has tried in different ways to get him to participate in more advanced military projects.   They have often discussed the possibility of trying to arm the populace and start a school for military training.   They have drawn up detailed plans of how they would obtain weapons.   These plans began as a discussion about 'how one could do even more ...' Among other things concrete plans were drawn up on how to attack a carabineer barracks.   The purpose of the attack would be to get hold of weapons which could later be used in other kinds of attacks.   Nothing came of these plans because Hector was arrested in 1983.   During this arrest the police asked a wide number of questions; inter alia, questions were asked about places which were to be meeting points for the participants in the attack.   The attack against the carabineer barracks never took place.   Hector found out instead that another attack had been carried out against another carabineer barracks.   When asked to describe more details about the plan to attack Hector said that he and the Gorilla were to carry the stolen weapons to the churchyard and bury them there.   When the time was right, the weapons were to be fetched from the churchyard by other persons.   The Gorilla never mentioned Frente Patriotico Manuel Rodriguez by name, but Hector has understood that the Gorilla had a relatively central position in the organisation.   The Gorilla himself only mentioned that he was now active in the Communist Party.    As an example of the Gorilla's central position Hector mentioned that a short time before the assassination attempt against Pinochet the Gorilla asked Hector if he would consider driving a lorry on a very important occasion. Hector gave a hesitant reply and the suggestion was dropped. In retrospect Hector has realised that it could possibly have been the vehicle that would be used on the occasion of the assassination attempt.   Hector has not taken part in any direct military operations. On one occasion however he was instructed to drive a lorry to a particular spot.   He was to park the lorry there and then fetch another lorry.   He was given no more information on that occasion.   However this plan was cancelled for security reasons.   Shortly thereafter Hector read in a newspaper that an arms cache had been discovered right next to the place where he was to park the lorry.   A few months after he had met the Gorilla by chance, an old friend turned up with whom they had worked in a resistance cell in 1973-74 in the town of La Serena.   The friend immediately said that he was in trouble with the police and that he needed a place to hide.   Hector offered to give him shelter and they went straight back to Hector's home.   Later in the evening two other friends joined them, all three armed with pistols.   Hector also thought he saw sub-machine guns of the kind used by the Chilean police.   Hector never found out why the friend was on the run, as he said, 'it was better not to know anything'.   One day, on leaving Hector's house, the friend was arrested.   Hector was informed of the arrest by an acquaintance who had previously seen Hector with the friend who was in hiding.   The other two friends fled from Hector's house immediately.   After this Hector moved to Santiago and supported himself as a construction worker.   He remained in Santiago between roughly September 1984 and December 1985.   He rented out his house through a fake owner and was informed that, shortly after, the house was searched and as a result of the search the tenants moved.   The fake owner found new tenants to live in the house for the rest of the time.   Since no further searches were carried out Hector did not think it was dangerous to move back to Villa Alemana.   Thus, in December 1985, he returned there.   When asked about the numerous 'chance' occasions when he met people who can be assumed to belong to the 'Front', Hector replied that he had also wondered about this.   With regard to the Gorilla he felt it was pure chance that he met him.   Hector is more hesitant about the second friend.   Hector said that it could have been a chance encounter but that it could also have been a conscious attempt to bind him more firmly to the activities of the Front.   Hector stated himself that because of his knowledge of explosives and as the owner of a remotely situated house he could be of interest to such an organisation as the 'Front'.   When Hector returned to Villa Alemana he felt he was being observed in different ways.   He stated that he quite frequently encountered different types of salesmen who got in touch with him ...   During one of our conversations Hector said suddenly 'there is something I have never talked about and something which I shall never tell'.   I insisted that he tell me.   A psychological struggle took place which lasted at least an hour.   I tried to maintain the initiative all the time and to motivate Hector to tell his secret.   Hector defended his position and said 'I'll never say it, not even if I am expelled will I tell it.   I'll only say it at the airport'.   Finally Hector said that he had been in a poor state of mind for a long time in Chile and had taken large amounts of anti-depressants.   After the torture of 1986 his nerves have been strained to the point of breaking and because of internal confession tradition in the Mormon Church he sought out the highest ranking leader in the Mormon Church with the rank of Grand President and told him everything.   He told him of his contacts with the Gorilla and also about the two other members of the Mormon Church whom he had presented to the Gorilla.   The conversations took place on several occasions.   On the first occasion Hector took the initiative and therefore related relatively little, then the Grand President took the initiative and obtained more details.   In January 1987 Hector was arrested and tortured.   When he left the torture chamber he tried to get in contact with the two other members of the Mormon Church but they had both disappeared.   He also tried to make contact with the Gorilla but he had also disappeared.   Hector is subjectively convinced that all three are dead.   He is also c