of election fraud. The complainant was once again arrested and kept in detention for three days, during which he claims to have been tortured. On 30 January 1998, he again was arrested while attending a mass demonstration that he had helped to organize. He was brought to a secret underground prison, a so-called “ghost house”, where he was kept in detention for about two months. He managed to escape from the prison and fled to the Netherlands, where he arrived on 13 April 1998. 2.5The complainant requested asylum in the Netherlands on 15 April 1998. On 12 May 1998, the migration authorities interviewed him, and the Secretary of Justice rejected his request as manifestly ill founded on 23 May 1999. The complainant’s request for residence on humanitarian grounds was also rejected. 2.6On 14 April 2000, the Secretary of Justice rejected his request for a review of the decision. Furthermore, the complainant’s appeal to the District Court of the Hague was rejected on 29 March 2001. The complaint 3.The complainant claims that if returned to the Sudan, he would be subjected to torture. In substantiation, he provides his history of previous detention, including his alleged subjection to torture on account of his political activity in the Sudan. He further indicates that there is a consistent pattern of human rights violations committed by Sudanese authorities, and refers in this regard to reports by human rights non-governmental organizations, and documents of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits 4.1By note verbale dated 11 March 2002, the State party informed the Committee that it does not object to the admissibility of the complaint. The State party presented its observations on the merits of the complaint on 9 July 2002. 4.2The State party contends that the complainant’s return would not violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. It gives a detailed description of the national proceedings in the case. The admission and expulsion of aliens are regulated by the 1965 Aliens Act, the Aliens Decree, the Regulation of Aliens and the 1994 Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines.a 4.3The first interview of an asylum-seeker takes place as soon as possible. It is conducted on the basis of a form on which the asylum-seeker fills in relevant data. At this stage he/she is not asked about the reasons for leaving the country of origin. This interview is followed by a second one which focuses on the reasons for leaving the country of origin. The asylum-seeker or his/her representative receives a copy of the report of the interviewing officer and has at least two days to submit corrections or additions. A decision is then made by an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) official on behalf of the State Secretary for Justice. 4.4If an application for admission as a refugee or for a residence permit is denied, the asylum-seeker may lodge an objection. The decision is reviewed by a committee, which interviews the asylum-seeker. If the objection is declared unfounded, an appeal can be lodged with the District Court of The Hague, with no possible further appeal, as provided under the 1965 Aliens Act.b 4.5The State party affirms that the Minister for Foreign Affairs periodically issues country reportsc on the human rights situation in the Sudan. According to the report of September 1998 on the Sudan, after the coup led by General Omar Hassan al-Bashir on 30 June 1989, all political parties were banned, their leaders left the country or continued their political activities in hiding. The National Islamic Front (NIF) remained the only influential political force. Since 1993, Omar Hassan al-Bashir has been the President of the Sudan. NIF has a large majority in parliament. The report noted that arbitrary arrests and detention without charge were current. Supporters of banned political parties, trade union officials, lawyers and human rights activists were among the victims. Members of these groups had been known to “disappear”, ending up in the security services’ “ghost houses” or being harassed in other ways by the security services. 4.6The State party argues that according to the above report, political prisoners were mainly detained in the Khartoum North Central Prison (Kober prison). By European standards, the living conditions in that prison were poor, but the prohibition of torture was respected. The military and security services had their own detention centres where torture and detention without charge were frequent. “Ghost houses” were unofficial detention centres not subjected to any form of oversight. Detention generally lasted from a few days to three weeks. The purpose was to intimidate suspected political adversaries; detainees were subjected to mental and physical abuse and torture. The armed attacks in eastern Sudan led to increased use of these centres in the first half of 1997, but once the Government established greater control over the situation later in 1997, their use declined. The Minister concluded that since 1997, some positive changes in the Sudan were discernible. The situation was not such as to imply that it would be irresponsible to return a Sudanese national whose application for admission as a refugee or for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds had been refused after careful consideration. 4.7By letter of 20 November 1998, the State Secretary for Justice notified the House of Representatives of his decision that Northern Sudanese asylum-seekers would no longer be eligible for provisional residence permits.d On 2 June 1999, the Legal Uniformity Division concluded that, on the basis of the information available, the decision of the State Secretary for Justice was justified. 4.8The country report of 1999 stated that the human rights situation in the Sudan had improved slightly but remained a cause of concern. In particular, the situation in the conflict areas was troubling. Arbitrary arrest and detention had become less common, but were still possible under the National Security Act and the Criminal Code (no date specified). 4.9On 21 July 2000, the Minister for Foreign Affairs released a supplementary report on the policy of a number of Western countries on the return of Sudanese whose applications for asylum were unsuccessful. The country reports of 1999 and 2000 led the State Secretary for Justice to alter his policy on categorical protection. In particular, members of the non-Arabic South Sudanese groups or Nuba groups who, before leaving the country, had resided undisturbed in Northern Sudan were no longer eligible for provisional residence permits.