CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 juillet 1995

.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. 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)