-
CAT/C/34/D/195/2002
Page 15
of the complaint, nor on the establishment by the complainant, beyond reasonable doubt, of the
facts he invoked, since they could only be evaluated in the context of the decision on the merits
of the complaint. The State party concludes that, given the reasoning behind it, the decision by
the Administrative Court of Appeal does nothing to strengthen the complainant’s position before
the Committee.
11.7 This being so, the State party alludes to the Committee’s recently reiterated view that it is
for the courts of the States parties to the Convention, and not for the Committee, to evaluate the
facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which such
facts and evidence were evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.6 The
ruling by the Administrative Court of Appeal shows precisely that the manner in which the
domestic courts examined the facts and evidence produced by the complainant cannot be
regarded as clearly arbitrary or tantamount to a denial of justice.
11.8 In conclusion, the State party maintains that France cannot be held to have ignored its
treaty obligations by removing the individual in question to his country of origin after checking
several times, before arriving at that decision, that the complainant could not reasonably be
considered to be exposed to danger if he was sent home. With regard to the Committee’s case
law, it cannot be supposed that the French authorities could reasonably have considered that he
would be exposed to real danger in the event of being sent home when they decided to enforce
the deportation order against him.
Comments by counsel
12.
In her comments of 11 June 2004, counsel maintains that the State party violated article 3
of the Convention. She adds that she had had a telephone conversation with the complainant,
who said he had been handed over by the French police to Algerian agents in the plane; on
leaving Algiers airport in a van, he was handed over to the Algerian secret services who kept him
in various different venues for a year and half before releasing him without documents of any
kind, apparently pending a judgement, the judgement in absentia having been annulled. The
complainant claims he was severely tortured.
Consideration of the merits
13.1 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention,
whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger
of being subjected to torture upon return to Algeria. The Committee observes, at the outset, that
in cases where a person has been expelled at the time of its consideration of the complaint, the
Committee assesses what the State party knew or should have known at the time of expulsion.
Subsequent events are relevant to the assessment of the State party’s knowledge, actual or
constructive, at the time of removal.
13.2 In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant
considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a
consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the
determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at
risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would return. It follows that the
existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country