CAT/C/65/D/841/2017 2.8 The complainant appealed the decision of the State Secretariat. On 26 June 2017, the State Secretariat transmitted a notice to the Federal Administrative Court, which was interpreted as notification of the complainant’s return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. On this basis, the Court ordered the case to be struck on 3 July 2017. However, on 5 July 2017, the State Secretariat informed the Court that the complainant had not left Switzerland. By interim ruling of 6 July 2017, the Court cancelled the decision to strike the case and reopened the appeal proceedings. 2.9 On 21 August 2017, the Court upheld the decision of the State Secretariat and ordered the complainant’s expulsion to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The letter of 10 March 2017 signed by Major General Munene failed to convince the Court that the complainant ran a risk of persecution owing to his political activities in Switzerland since leaving the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Court found that the content of the letter and the circumstances of its drafting5 show that it was provided as an accommodation, at the request of the complainant’s counsel and for the sole purpose of the asylum proceedings in Switzerland and had, therefore, no evidentiary value. 2.10 The Court also considered the complainant’s claim that he did not know the name or status of the fourth person who attended the hearing on 27 April 2017. The Court noted that, in addition to the complainant, the attendees were the hearing leader, the hearing reporter and the representative of charitable organizations. In the Court’s view, the fact that the complainant did not know the name or status of one of the attendees – which is doubtful inasmuch as, according to the record, all the attendees introduced themselves – was insufficient to overturn the impugned decision. Indeed, not having this information does not prejudice the complainant in the least and has no bearing on the asylum proceedings. Lastly, the Court found that the complainant acted in bad faith by raising the alleged error only at the appeal stage when he had been free to do so at the hearing on grounds for asylum or immediately thereafter. 2.11 On 29 August 2017, the complainant filed a request for reconsideration on the basis of new facts. He raised the fact that a fourth person, whose name and status were not disclosed, was present at the hearing of 27 April 2017. Furthermore, the fact that the complainant spent over 80 days at the reception and procedure centre in Vallorbe, when the statutory limit was 60 days, should be justified. Lastly, the two judges who ruled on the appeal of the decision of the State Secretariat of 17 May 2017 were from the same Swiss political party, the same canton and the same branch of the Federal Administrative Court, thereby calling into question their neutrality, impartiality and independence. On 20 September 2017, the complainant submitted to the State Secretariat a copy of a wanted notification, dated 14 December 2016, issued by the National Intelligence Agency to all its departments of operations, stating that the complainant was wanted for desertion. 6 2.12 On 29 September 2017, the State Secretariat dismissed the request for reconsideration on the grounds that the complainant had not adduced any new facts and that the arguments put forward did not change the authorities’ finding that the grounds for asylum, whose plausibility had not been assessed, were irrelevant. The State Secretariat found that the Court had ruled on the claim regarding the presence of a fourth person at the hearing, noting that the person had been introduced to the complainant orally, was an employee of the State Secretariat and had co-signed the decision. The State Secretariat recalled that the statutory limit on stays at reception and procedure centres is 90 days. As for the criticisms made by the complainant’s counsel regarding the judges who ruled on the complainant’s request, the State Secretariat noted that the issue did not fall under its remit. 5 6 GE.19-01119 According to the record of the hearing of 27 April 2017, when the complainant was asked to explain how he had obtained the letter, he replied that he had not taken any particular steps and that he had merely informed his counsel, also a member of the Armée de résistance populaire, who assured him that he would telephone the Major General to inform him that the complainant was in danger. Major General Munene had then confirmed that the complainant is a member of his movement and would be in danger if he returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo given that several members of the movement had, in the past, been arrested upon return to the country. A copy of the notification is on file. 3