Communication No. 30/1995 Submitted by: P. M. P. K. (name deleted) [represented by counsel] Alleged victim: The author State party: Sweden Date of communication: 14 July 1995 The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 20 November 1995, Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication is a Zairian citizen who entered Sweden in November 1991 to request asylum. She claims that her return to Zaire following the dismissal of her application for refugee status would violate article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. She is represented by counsel. 2. On 31 January 1994, the Swedish Board of Immigration refused the author’s application for asylum, noting that the political situation in Zaire had improved and considering that it was not likely that the author would be subjected to persecution or severe harassment. On 13 February 1995, the Aliens Appeal Board confirmed the decision of the Swedish Board of Immigration. The author then submitted a "new application" to the Appeal Board, arguing that the situation in Zaire had not improved, but on 16 March 1995 the Board rejected her application, considering that the circumstances invoked by the author could not be seen as new evidence. 3. On 22 August 1995, the Committee, through its Special Rapporteur, transmitted the communication to the State party for comments and requested the State party not to expel the author while her communication was under consideration by the Committee. 4. By submission of 16 October 1995, the State party challenges the admissibility of the communication. It explains that under chapter 2, section 5, of the Aliens Act, an alien who is to be refused entry or expelled can apply for a residence permit if the application is based on circumstances that have not previously been examined in the case and if the enforcement of the decision on refusal of entry or expulsion will be in conflict with humanitarian requirements. The State party emphasizes that new circumstances cannot ex officio be assessed by the immigration authorities, but only following a socalled "new application". The State party notes that the medical evidence invoked by the author in support of her communication has not previously been submitted to the Swedish immigration authorities, so that neither the Swedish Immigration Board nor the Aliens Appeal Board has had the opportunity to assess it. Considering that a "new application" may be lodged at any time and that the -60-