State party:Sweden Date of complaint:22 July 2002 The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 11 November 2003, Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 215/2002, submitted by Mr. J.A.G.V. under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Having taken into account all information made available to it by the author of the complaint, his counsel and the State party, Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention. 1.1The author of the complaint is J.A.G.V., a Colombian citizen, born in 1962. In his complaint dated 22 July 2002 he claimed that his deportation to Colombia would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (henceforth referred to as “the Convention”). He is represented by counsel. 1.2The State party ratified the Convention on 8 January 1986, when it also made the declaration under article 22 of the Convention. The Convention entered into force for the State party on 26 June 1987. 1.3In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Committee forwarded the complaint to the State party on 23 July 2002 for comments and requested it, under rule 108, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, not to deport the complainant to Colombia while the complaint was under consideration by the Committee. The Committee indicated, however, that this request could be reviewed taking into account new arguments submitted by the State party or on the basis of guarantees and assurances furnished by the Colombian authorities. The complainant was deported to Colombia on 23 July 2002. In its written submission dated 30 October 2002, the State party reported that it had not been in a position to comply with the Committee’s request, since the complainant’s deportation was already taking place when the request for interim measures reached the Government. The facts as submitted to the Committee 2.1The complainant asserts that he was a member of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC) and of the United Confederation of Workers (CUT). He maintains that he was arrested and tortured on several occasions during the 1990sa by officers of the Colombian police who, he alleges, beat him, applied electric shocks to his genitals until he lost consciousness and placed plastic bags filled with water on his head, covering his nose and mouth. He asserts that he escaped from prison several times. 2.2The complainant says that he succeeded in leaving Colombia on a false passport, since he was wanted by the police, and arrived in Sweden under an identity other than his own on 25 March 1998. 2.3On 26 May 1998, the complainant applied for a permanent residence permit in Sweden under the identity of Celimo Torres Romero. Subsequently, on 24 July 1998, he was arrested under that name as a suspect in a drug-trafficking case. His true identity was revealed during the police investigations. 2.4On 24 September 1998, the Solletuna District Court sentenced the complainant to six years’ imprisonment and expulsion from the territory of the State party, after finding him guilty of a drug-trafficking offence,b committed in Sweden. The complainant appealed to the Appeal Court of Svea which, in a decision of 26 February 1999, rejected his application. He entered prison that day and on 23 July 2002 was released on parole. 2.5On 13 October 1998, the complainant applied for asylum under the identity of José Ángel Grueso Vargas. On 25 March 1999 the Swedish Migration Board rejected his application, on the grounds that he had applied for asylum only after being sentenced to deportation from Swedish territory. The complainant appealed to the Swedish Aliens Appeals Board, but his appeal was rejected in a decision of 20 November 2000.c 2.6On 17 July 2002, the complainant lodged a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights but withdrew it some days later.d The complaint 3.1In his initial submission the complainant argues that his deportation to Colombia would constitute a violation by Sweden of article 3 of the Convention, since he faced the risk of being subjected to further torture in Colombia. 3.2The complainant contends that the Swedish authorities had no grounds for their decision to refuse him asylum, since note was merely taken of the fact that the Colombian Government had drawn up programmes which would protect Mr. Grueso Vargas, without taking into account the fact that the complainant had been tortured in Colombia. He further claims that the Swedish authorities based their refusal on the lack of credibility that they attached to his assertions, although he submitted medical certificates as evidence of torture. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits