Krôcher conspiracy, confirmed, in the opinion of the State party, that she was a close collaborator of Krôcher and had been actively involved in discussions concern­ ing the planned abduction and that she had been designated by Krôcher to play an active role in the ab­ duction itself. free, without being chaUenged, to make any reference to the absent ahens which they and their defence counsel saw fit. 7.3 The author also argues that section 20 of the Swedish Ahens Act requires that the organization or group must, while being suspected of planning or com­ mitting acts in Sweden, be outside its home country. She claims, therefore, that the application of the relevant provisions of this law to a group which has been formed in Sweden is an evident misinterpretation. 7.4 For aU these reasons, the author does not agree with the State party's statement that the task of the Human Rights Committee should be hmited to an ex­ amination of whether the competent authorities have apphed the law in good faith and in a reasonable man­ ner. She states that it is not her intention to enter into a debate as to whether the Swedish Government at the time of the decision acted in good faith or not: her case is that this decision was not reached in accordance with the provisions of the Ahens Act since it was based on one ground which was not to be found in those provi­ sions and on another ground which was an obvious misinterpretation of them. 6.4 The State party submitted therefore that the decision to expel Anna Maroufidou was "reached in ac­ cordance with law" and that there has been no violation of article 13 of the Covenant in this case. 7.1 On 20 January 1981, the author of the com­ munication submitted, through her legal representative, comments on the State party's submissions under article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol. In her comments she states that she does not dispute the opinion of the Swedish Government that article 13 of the Covenant re­ quires a legal basis for a decision to expel an ahen. In the opinion of the author, however, if the ground for the decision is one which cannot be found in the ap­ plicable domestic law of the State party, then the con­ clusion must be drawn that article 13 has been violated. In this regard the author submits that it is clear that mere knowledge of a terrorist plan is not a ground for expulsion under the relevant provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act. She contends that it is obvious from the travaux préparatoires of this law and all legal literature about it that the legislation against terrorism is of an ex­ traordinary nature and that it should be applied in a restrictive manner. It is also clear, in her submission, that the only charge against her at the time of the deci­ sion which she is contesting was this alleged knowledge. She maintains that ah the circumstances mentioned by the State party have natural explanations and are by no means decisive. As stated in her original communica­ tion, aU the refugees who met and made each other's acquaintance at the Refugee Council's office in Stockholm found themselves in a similar situation and often had common interests. Many of them had dif­ ficuhies in finding rooms or flats to live. It was common knowledge that they assisted each other and often crowded into rather small quarters. They frequenfly rented their rooms on short-term conditions and there was for this reason much moving around. The author helped several people to find a place to hve. After Krocher's arrest she was afraid that she might be ar­ rested herself. The newspapers were full of news and big headlines about this arrest and Krocher's dramatic plans of terrorism. Therefore she did hide certain things not to protect Krôcher but to protect herself against any un­ just suspicion of collaboration with him. 8. The Committee considering the present com­ munication in the hght of all information made available to it by the parties as provided for in article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, hereby decides to base its views on the following facts which have been essentially confirmed by the State party: Anna Maroufidou, a Greek citizen, who came to Sweden seeking asylum, was granted a residence permit in 1976. Subsequently on 4 April 1977 she was arrested on suspicion of being in­ volved in a plan of a terrorist group to abduct a former member of the Swedish Government. In these cir­ cumstances the Central Immigration Authority on 28 April 1977 raised the question of her expulsion from Sweden on the ground that there was good reason to beheve that she belonged to, or worked for, a terrorist organization or group, and that there was a danger that she would participate in Sweden in a terrorist act of the kind referred to in sections 20 and 29 of the Ahens Act. A lawyer was appointed to represent her in the pro­ ceedings under the Act. On 5 May 1977 the Swedish Government decided to expel her and the decision was immediately executed. 9.1 Article 13 of the International Covenant on Civil and Pohtical Rights provides that An alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority. 7.2 The author argues that, if it was true that she had participated in the preparations for the crimes planned by Krôcher, she would have been prosecuted for conspiracy and preparations for those crimes under Swedish law, but she was not. In addition, subsequent disclosures at the trial against the Swedish nationals in­ volved in the Krôcher conspiracy could not justify the decision to expel her because that trial took place a long time afterwards, and because the author as well as many other foreigners who had been expelled were not present at that trial. So the Swedish citizens then accused were 9.2 Article 13 lays down a number of conditions which must be comphed with by the State party con­ cerned when it expels an alien from its territory. The ar­ ticle applies only to an ahen "lawfuUy in the territory" of the State party, but it is not in dispute that when the question of Anna Maroufidou's expulsion arose in April 1977 she was lawfuUy resident in Sweden. Nor is 82