CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 3 décembre 1996

.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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                          Application No. 28783/95                       Ariko HARRON and Jessica ALAYO                                   against                                   Sweden                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 3 December 1996)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   I.       THE PARTIES         (paras. 1 - 3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   I.       SUMMARY OF THE FACTS         (paras. 4 - 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   III.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         (paras. 12 - 17). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   IV.      THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION         (paras. 18 - 21). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3   APPENDIX:   DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4   I.    THE PARTIES   1.     The present Report, which was drawn up in accordance with Article 30 paras. 1 (b) and 2 of the Convention, concerns the application brought by Mr. Ariko Harron and Ms. Jessica Alayo against Sweden.   2.     The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1962 and 1963 respectively.   They are citizens of Uganda.   Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. Robert Camerini, a lawyer practising in Stockholm.   3.     The respondent Government are represented by their Agent, Ms. Eva Jagander of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.   II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   4.     The facts of the case as submitted at the admissibility stage are set out in the Commission's decision of 7 March 1996 as to the admissibility of the application (see the attached Appendix).   They may be summarised as follows.   5.     The applicants' requests for asylum in Sweden were rejected by the National Immigration Board (Statens invandrarverk) on 5 April 1993 and the applicants' expulsion was ordered.   The decision was upheld by the Aliens Appeals Board (Utlänningsnämnden) on 3 June 1994.   6.     The applicants' second application for asylum was rejected by the Aliens Appeals Board on 8 September 1995.   7.     On 4 October 1995 the National Immigration Board stayed the enforcement of the expulsion order pending the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the present application.   8.     Before the Commission the applicants claimed that they had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Uganda on account of their political activities and that, if returned to that country, they would risk further such treatment.   Moreover, available medical certificates indicated that there were clear and serious risks that they would attempt to commit suicide or sustain permanent physical and mental injuries if they were to be expelled.   They invoked Article 3 of the Convention.   9.     After the application had been declared admissible by the Commission, the applicants lodged a third application with the Aliens Appeals Board.   On 6 November 1996 the Board granted the applicants permanent residence permits in Sweden and revoked the expulsion order.   10.    The Government submit that, in view of the granting of residence permits, the applicants can no longer be regarded as victims of a violation of the Convention.   In the Government's opinion, the matter has been resolved and the application should be struck out of the Commission's list of cases.   11.    The applicants agree with the Government that the application should be struck out of the Commission's list of cases.   III.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   12.    The application was introduced on 22 September and registered on 28 September 1995.   13.    On 27 September 1995 the President of the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 36 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, to indicate to the respondent Government that it was desirable in the interest of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings not to deport the applicants to Uganda until the Commission had had an opportunity to examine the application.   The President further decided, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to communicate the application to the respondent Government.   14.    The Government's observations were submitted on 16 November 1995 after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   The applicants replied on 4 January 1996, also after an extension of the time-limit.   15.    On 7 March 1996 the Commission declared the application admissible.   16.    By successive decisions, the Commission prolonged the indication under Rule 36, ultimately until 6 December 1996.   17.    On 3 December 1996 the Commission adopted the present Report, the following members being present:              Mr.    S. TRECHSEL, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA                  M. VILA AMIGÓ   IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   18.    According to the established case-law of the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights an applicant who obtains adequate redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of the Convention cannot, or cannot any longer, claim to be a "victim" of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention (cf., e.g., Eur. Court HR, Eckle v. Germany judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, p. 30, para. 66).   19.    The Commission recalls that in the present case the applicants have been granted permanent residence permits in Sweden.   20.    In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the applicants have obtained adequate redress at the domestic level for the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   21.    The Commission concludes therefore that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (b) of the Convention.   It further finds that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require the continuation of the examination thereof.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.           H.C. KRÜGER                           S. TRECHSEL          Secretary                             President      of the Commission                     of the Commission