pelled from Sweden "if tiiere is founded reason to assume that he belongs to, or works for, [a terrorist] organization or group", as defined in section 20, and if "there is a danger, considering what is known about his previous activities or otherwise, that he will participate in Sweden in an act" as referred to in section 20. Section 20 defines a terrorist organization or group as "an organization or group which, considering what is known about its activities, can be expected to use violence, threat or force outside its home country for pohtical purposes and, in this connection, to commit such acts in Sweden". According to section 30 of the Aliens Act, the decision to expel an alien would in these cases be taken by the Government, which, however, must first hear the views of the Central Immigration Authority. According to section 31 expulsion has to be preceded by an interrogation of the person concerned.' 2.5 The decision of the Swedish Government to ex­ pel her is contested by the author on the ground that it was based only on the allegation that she had had such contact with Krocher and other persons involved in the kidnapping plan that she was not hkely to have re­ mained ignorant about the planned abduction. She denies such knowledge and argues further that even if she had had such knowledge this would not have been a sufficient basis to expel her under the Aliens Act because that law stipulates that the person concerned has to belong to, or work for, an organization or group as described by its provisions. Mere knowledge of planned terrorist activities was, therefore, in her sub­ mission, not sufficient to justify an expulsion in accord­ ance with the law. In addition, she points out that Krocher and other persons involved had not formed a group or organization as described by the Aliens Act. They were just several young persons of various na­ tionalities who had met in Stockholm, and therefore their "home country" in that context should be con­ sidered to be Sweden. 2.6 For these reasons the author considers that the decision to expel her from Sweden, while she was lawfully staying in that country, was not taken in ac­ cordance with Swedish law and was therefore in viola­ tion of article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights. 2.7 The author states that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 3. On 14 March 1980 the Working Group of the Human Rights Committee decided to transmit the com­ munication to the State party, under rule 91 of the pro­ visional rules of procedure, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibility. (b) That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party should be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explana­ tions or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. 6.1 In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, dated 8 December 1980, the State party stated that Anna Maroufidou was arrested on 4 April 1977. She was interrogated by the pohce on 15, 25 and 26 April. On 28 April 1977 the Central Immigration Authority declared that, in its opinion, there was good reason to assume that Anna Maroufidou belonged to, or worked for, an organization of the kind dealt with in section 20 of the Ahens Act, and that there was a danger that she would participate in Sweden in an act envisaged by that article. The Central Immigration Authority therefore concluded that the conditions for her expul­ sion pursuant to section 29 of the Aliens Act were fulfilled. On 5 May 1977 the Swedish Government decided to expel Anna Maroufidou and the decision was immediately executed. In a petition dated 15 September 1978 Anna Maroufidou, through her lawyer, asked the Government to revoke its decision to expel her. After obtaining the comments of the National Board of the Police as well as the reply of Anna Maroufidou's lawyer to these comments the Government decided on 14 June 1979 to reject the petition. 6.2 As to the application of article 13 of the Cov­ enant, the Swedish Government is of the opinion that article 13 requires that there shaU be a legal basis for a decision regarding expulsion. The decision shall be taken by a pubhc authority which has competence in the matter, and in accordance with procedure prescribed by law. The decision shall also be taken on the basis of legal provisions or rules which lay down the conditions for expulsion. On the other hand, the interpretation of national law must primarily be the task of the compe­ tent national authorities. In this regard the task of the Human Rights Committee should be limited to an ex­ amination of whether the national authorities inter­ preted and apphed the law in good faith and in a reasonable manner. 6.3 The State party pointed out that the conditions for expulsion which were found to be fulfiUed in the case of Anna Maroufidou were laid down in sections 20 and 29 of the Ahens Act. The provisions of these articles were interpreted and applied by the State party in good faith and in a reasonable manner. Krocher and his col­ laborators must be considered to constitute an organiza­ tion or group of the kind envisaged in section 20, and there were clear indications that Anna Maroufidou had been actively involved in the work of that organization or group. She was known to have found a flat for Krocher and to have taken steps, after Krocher's arrest, to remove from the flat objects which were of interest as evidence against Krocher. Suspicions against Anna Maroufidou were further strengthened by certain ob­ jects (masking equipment, etc.) which were found in her possession. Subsequent disclosures, in particular at the trial against the Swedish nationals involved in the 4. The State party, in its reply of 19 May 1980, did not contest the admissibility of the communication, but reserved its right to reply on the merits, stating merely that it considered the complaint to be unfounded. 5. On 25 July 1980, the Human Rights Committee therefore decided: (a) That the communication was admissible; ' The English translation of the quoted section is that provided by the State party. 81