Advance unedited version CCPR/C/129/D/3106/2018-3122/2018 The complaint 3.1 The expulsion order issued by the State party, which determines the expulsion of all Turkish nationals in Angola associated with the Colégio Esperança Internacional, including the authors, exposes them and their families to a risk of being forcibly returned to Turkey where, due to their open association with the Gülen movement, they would undoubtedly be subjected to violations that amount to the acts proscribed by article 7 of the Covenant. Such a conclusion is based on the concrete situation in Turkey for those with real or perceived association with the Gülen movement, 9 also reported by the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, after a visit to Turkey between 27 November and 2 December 2016.10 3.2 The authors complain that Turkey has been violating the rights to a fair trial and to due process of law through the treatment afforded to those with real or perceived affiliation with the Gülen movement, who have been accused of being terrorists. Therefore, if returned to Turkey, they face a high probability of having their rights enshrined in article 14 violated, and thus suffer the same fate as thousands of people arrested, indicted or simply fired just by the mere fact of identifying themselves with the Hizmet movement. Denial of a fair trial by Turkey to those seemingly affiliated to the Gülen movement and the treatment received by them from the Turkish authorities undeniably subject the authors to the risk of irreparable harm, as it increases the probability that they might be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty and subjected to treatment proscribed by article 7 of the Covenant. 3.3 Finally, the authors invoke a violation of article 13 of the Covenant in the sense that one shall have the right to contest an expulsion order and have the case reviewed by a competent authority prior to removal from a country. As the expulsion order issued by the President of Angola was not publicly issued and was never officially and formally delivered to the authors, they were never given the opportunity to present their arguments against their expulsion. According to paragraph 15 of General Comment No. 31, the expulsion cannot be arbitrary and, not only must the reviewing authority be independent and impartial, but the State must also guarantee that individuals have access to effective remedies to vindicate alleged violations of rights under the Covenant. Therefore, by not allowing hitherto access to the proper expulsion order and by not providing the reasons for the said order, the State party is in breach of its obligations under article 13 of the Covenant. 3.4 As for the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors recall that due to the threat of deportation or expulsion from the State party resulting from the Presidential Decree and after being unable to apply for asylum through the national authorities, they appealed to UNHCR for international protection together with the other teachers. As a result, in February 2017, they were given protection letters by UNHCR11 and were later informed that their asylum claims had been handed over to the Angolan government by UNHCR. 3.5 According to the authors, on 12 June 2017, the UNHCR’s Regional Representation for Southern Africa submitted an intervention to the then Vice President of the Republic of Angola, requesting the forced removal to be halted for all the concerned asylum-seekers subjected to the expulsion order. On 26 June 2017, the same UNHCR Regional Representation submitted a second intervention to the Vice President, again requesting the forced removal to be halted and assurances to be given that no refoulement will take place.12 By January 2018, no response was received from the State party on the request to halt the forced deportations. 3.6 The authors consider that, given that the Presidential Decree has not been cancelled and that there is an imminent threat of refoulement, it would be futile and/or dangerous for them to try to resort to the Angolan judiciary or to do any more than what has been hitherto attempted. They base this allegation on what the US Department of State calls “institutional 9 10 11 12 The authors refer to reports by the US Department of State, Freedom House, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which document stances of torture and ill-treatment in prison directed against supporters of the Gülen movement. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=20976&LangID=E. The authors provide twelve-month valid asylum-seeker certificates dated 25 July 2017. Copies of these two letters are not provided. 5