CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 avril 1994

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                       Application No. 23752/94                     by Mohammad ROUDI                     against Sweden        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 14 April 1994, the following members being present:             MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                S. TRECHSEL                A. WEITZEL                F. ERMACORA                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY             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 10 January 1994 by Mohammad ROUDI against Sweden and registered on 23 March 1994 under file No. 23752/94;        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 applicant is an Iranian citizen born in 1945. He is currently resident in Stockholm and is represented by Mr. Leif Rydberg, a lawyer in Bergshamra.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.        The applicant entered Sweden on 26 November 1989, using a false passport. In his request for asylum, alternatively a residence permit, he stated having left Iran with his own passport, which he had obtained from Turkmenians who had bribed officials. The smuggler in charge of the applicant's escape from Iran was said to have handed in the applicant's passport to the airport authorities in Teheran for control before his departure and the applicant himself had picked it up. The applicant further stated that he had not been politically active since 1979, when he had participated in clashes between Turkmenians and members of the Revolutionary Guard. Following the revolution all his property had allegedly been confiscated and he had been imprisoned for his activities in support of the Turkmenians. During six months, every third day, he had been brought before a Revolutionary Committee and had been questioned, assaulted and tortured, particularly by simulated executions. In 1983 he had been informed that he had been sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment. After three years in prison he had been granted his first leave. During his last leave on 23 November 1989 he had escaped from Iran. None of his relatives had ever been arrested or charged.        On 18 October 1990 the National Immigration Board (statens invandrarverk) rejected the applicant's request, having regard to the fact that, while imprisoned, the applicant had been granted a passport and had thus been able to leave Iran legally. The Board considered that, in view of the extremely careful control of departing passengers at the Teheran airport, the applicant's allegation that he had been sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment lacked credibility. Neither was his assertion that he had been granted a passport while in prison considered credible.        In his appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board (utlänningsnämnden) of December 1990 the applicant submitted that the passport with which he had left Iran had not necessarily been a valid one established in his name. He had never verified that it carried his name. Even if the passport had been valid, it is possible to bribe airport officials, which his friends might have done in his case. Moreover, according to a letter from his mother, his brother had allegedly been imprisoned in April 1990 and would remain in prison until the applicant returns to Iran. His cousin had allegedly been executed in June 1990. The applicant's Turkmenian friends had allegedly received visits by an Islamic Committee searching for the applicant. In addition, Government officials had carried out a search in his mother's home and found pictures of the Shah belonging to the applicant. The applicant's wife had been arrested in December 1990 and detained for a short period of time, but had been released after having transferred the rights to a friend's property as a "security" to the authorities.            The applicant later supplemented his appeal by referring to a copy of a document dated 27 August 1991 which was said to be a summons addressed to his wife ordering her to attend an interrogation. Having appeared for interrogation, the wife had allegedly again been arrested and detained for a short period of time.        On 21 October 1992 the applicant's appeal to the Aliens Appeals Board was rejected. The Aliens Appeals Board considered that the applicant's account of his alleged imprisonment, the alleged arrests of his wife and his departure from Iran was not credible, in particular his assertion that he had never verified the accuracy of his passport. The Board noted in this respect that he had stated to the Swedish immigration police that he had picked up the passport himself from the authorities at the Teheran airport.        The Aliens Appeals Board also had regard to interrogations with the applicant's wife and daughter conducted by the Swedish Embassy in Teheran. The wife had stated that the applicant had been granted leave once every four months and had been serving his sentence in the prison of Gombad. The daughter had first stated that the applicant had never been granted leave, but later changed her story. She had further stated that the applicant had been imprisoned in Gombad, Shiraz and Teheran. The Aliens Appeals Board concluded that the various accounts of the alleged arrests of the applicant's wife were inconsistent.          As the applicant had been staying in Sweden for more than 18 months, a special rule applied according to which he could have been granted a residence permit on account of particular ties to Sweden. However, considering that the applicant had a wife and five children in Iran, the Aliens Appeals Board considered his ties to that country to outweigh his ties to Sweden.        The applicant divorced while in Sweden, allegedly in an attempt to relieve his wife from further arrests.        In June 1993 the applicant lodged a further request for asylum, and an alternative request for a residence permit. He submitted that as of December 1990 he had been a member of the "Iran Paad Followers of the Iranian Monarchy", a movement of Iranians in exile attempting to re-establish the monarchy in Iran. In order to qualify for membership the applicant had had to prove that he had been a dissident during the present Iranian regime.        In his request of June 1993 the applicant further referred to a forensic report of 13 April 1993 by the Centre for Torture Victims, showing that he has scars on his face, neck, left arm and hand, torso and legs. The report concludes that the scars may well have occurred as a result of beatings with a dull instrument and that nothing contradicting the applicant's account of his torture experiences has been found. The applicant further referred to a psychiatric report of 27 April 1993 by the Centre for Torture Victims. This report finds nothing contradicting the applicant's account of his background.        In his request of June 1993 the applicant finally stated that he had divorced his wife and that he was cohabiting with a Swedish woman. Thus, his ties to Sweden could be considered stronger than those to Iran.        The applicant's request was rejected on 17 June 1993. The Board considered that some of the circumstances invoked had already been examined. The new circumstances invoked were not considered such as to make the applicant eligible for asylum, nor were there humanitarian reasons warranting the granting of a residence permit. As to the applicant's ties to Sweden, the Board referred to the preparatory works to the Aliens Act, according to which a residence permit shall be refused if such ties are invoked at the enforcement stage.        On 24 June 1993 the National Immigration Board rejected the applicant's further request for a residence permit, considering that no new circumstances had been shown.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains about his impending expulsion to Iran, fearing further imprisonment, torture and capital punishment if returned to that country. He refers to the alleged part of his prison sentence which is yet to be served and fears a harsh punishment in view of his allegedly unlawful escape during his leave from prison. He invokes no particular provision of the Convention or its Protocols.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 10 January 1994.        On 21 January 1994 the Commission examined the application and decided not to apply Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure.        The application was registered on 23 March 1994     THE LAW        The applicant complains about his impending expulsion to Iran, fearing further imprisonment, torture and capital punishment if returned to that country.        The Commission has examined the application 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 (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., p. 34, para. 103). A mere possibility of ill-treatment is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) (ibid., p. 37, para. 111).        The Commission shares the Swedish authorities' doubts in regard to the applicant's story and finds that his account to the Swedish authorities of his background in Iran contains inconsistencies.        The Commission concludes, on the evidence before it concerning both the applicant's individual background and the general situation in Iran, that it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, if expelled to Iran.        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 Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (C.A. NØRGAARD)