CAT/C/33/D/218/2002 Page 4 away. The complainant added that he never informed the police about the incident in the jungle, for fear of being killed by members of FARE-DP. He had never been personally contacted by FARE-DP members or received threats from them. The Board was informed by the complainant’s counsel that FARE-DP members had illegally entered the complainants’ brother house in Quito and had destroyed part of the furniture. 4.4 On 19 July 2001, the Migration Board rejected the complainant’s application for asylum and ordered that he be deported to Ecuador. It took into account that Ecuador had been a working democracy for several years, that the complainant remained in Ecuador almost a year after he had witnessed the torture and homicide, that he had never personally been persecuted or threatened by members of FARE-DP, and that he did not seek protection from the authorities in spite of the fact that government forces had done what they could to eliminate FARE-DP. The Board concluded that the complainant had not substantiated his claim that he risked persecution. The complainant appealed against the Board’s decision, maintaining that he risked being tortured and that government forces were unable to control FARE-DP activities. He added that should the circumstances that prompted FARE-DP’s threats against him become known, his life would be at risk, but this time through violence from government forces or the police. On 2 September 2002, the Aliens Appeals Board dismissed the appeal, endorsing the assessment made by the Migration Board. In addition, the Board noted that the complainant had applied for asylum more that a month after his arrival in Sweden. Regarding his statement that he risked persecution by government forces or the police, the Board noted that the complainant was on guard when he witnessed the incident at Cononaco camp, and thus it could not had been unknown to the military that he knew about the incident. For as long as the complainant remained in Ecuador after the incident, it appeared that he had not been of any interest to the military or the police. 4.5 As to the general human rights situation in Ecuador, the State party notes that while according to some reports1 it remains poor in many areas, and that the police continues to torture and abuse suspects and prisoners with impunity, there have nevertheless been other positive improvements. Domestic and international human rights groups operate without restriction in the country, and the government has contracted some of these organizations to provide human rights training to the military and the police. Ecuador ratified the Convention against Torture on 30 March 1988, recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider individual complaints. 4.6 As to the complainant’s risk of torture at the hands of members of FARE-DP, the State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk torture by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside of the scope of article 3 of the Convention. It adds that it is clear that the Ecuadorian authorities do not tolerate the activities of FARE-DP, which they regard as criminal and link to a series of kidnapping and murder cases2, and that there is 1 2001 U.S Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and 2002 Amnesty International Report. 2 According to the 2001 U.S Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.