United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Sessional/Annual Report of Committee - 5.1 By its submission of 27 June 1995, the State party informs the Committee that it has deferred the author's expulsion, as requested by the Committee. The State party notes, however, that the Committee has asked for interim measures in the majority of all cases transmitted to it, and expresses its concern that the authors are using the Committee as a further appeal instance, allowing a suspension of the expulsion for at least six months. 5.2 The State party acknowledges that the author has exhausted all domestic remedies available to him. 5.3 However, the State party argues that the communication is inadmissible because it lacks the minimum substantiation that would render the communication compatible with article 22 of the Convention. The State party points out that the author has substantially modified his version of the facts in his communication to the Committee compared to his presentation to the national authorities. Also, in the course of the domestic procedures, the author's versions of the facts varied. 5.4 With regard to the incident in December 1991 (see para. 2.3), the State party points out that at the hearing before the cantonal authorities, the author reported the incident as a clash between two groups, the representatives of the Islamic Front and a group of students; at the hearing before the federal authorities, the author said that the conflict was only between Mr. Sedki Ali Nagdi and himself, and that the students kept out of it, while the members of the Islamic Front were waiting outside. Moreover, at the cantonal hearing the author said that Mr. Sedki Ali Nagdi had threatened to take him back to Sudan, whereas the author denied this at the federal hearing. The State party notes that the author maintains the second version in his communication to the Committee, without indicating that this contradicts the earlier statement made before the cantonal authorities. The State party emphasizes that the author confirmed in writing that his declarations before the cantonal authorities had been truthful, including his statement that the leader of the militia threatened to take him back to Sudan by force. In this connection, the State party indicates that the minutes of the hearing were read back to the author in Arabic. 5.5 Further, the State party notes that, before the cantonal authorities, the author said that after the incident he did not return to his apartment for a week or ten days, whereas before the federal authorities he said he had gone back to his apartment after two or three days. In his communication to the Committee, the author speaks of "some days", thereby avoiding his contradictory accounts. Also, in his communication as well as before the federal authorities, the author says that the "Hizbullah" made a plan in November 1993 to take certain persons back to Sudan by force, whereas before the cantonal authorities he maintained that this happened in October 1993. 5.6 As regards the alleged disappearance of the author's brother, the State party notes that the author informed the cantonal authorities that his brother had disappeared in January 1992, but that he learned of his disappearance only in November 1992. Later, he said that his brother disappeared in November 1992, but that he learned of it only later. When asked by the federal authorities which version was true, he merely answered that his brother disappeared during 1992 but he did not know exactly when. 5.7 On the basis of the above, the State party contends that important contradictions in the author's own account of the facts affect the credibility of his claims. The State party suggests that, if the Committee http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/de75e94f920bd0a0802565a600537744?Opendocument (68 of 109)16/10/2006 9:54:12 AM