M.C.C. AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention of their imminent expulsion to Somalia. They also complain

about the unfairness of the proceedings. Further complaints are raised

under Articles 5, 13 and 14 (Art. 5, 13 , 14) of the Convention.

The Commission notes that the Swiss Asylum Appeals Commission

gave its final decision on 29 March 1995, and that on 26 July 1996 it

declared inadmissible the applicants' request for the reopening of the

proceedings. An issue arises therefore as to whether the applicants

have complied with the six months time-limit under Article 26 (Art. 26)

of the Convention. The Commission need not resolve this issue since

the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.

2. The applicants complain of their imminent expulsion to Somalia,

claiming that they risk being persecuted on account of their membership

of a particular clan. They rely on Article 3 (Art. 3) of the

Convention which states:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment."

According to the Convention organs' case-law, the right of an

alien to reside in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by

the Convention. Nevertheless, expulsion may in exceptional

circumstances involve a violation of the Convention, for example where

there is a serious and well-founded fear of treatment contrary to

Article 2 or Article 3 (Art. 2, 3) of the Convention in the country to

which the person is to be expelled (see Eur. Court HR, Chahal v. the

United Kingdom judgment of 15 November 1996, paras. 72 ff).

However, the mere possibility of ill-treatment on account of the

unsettled general situation in a country is in itself insufficient to

give rise to a breach of Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention (see Eur.

Court HR, Vilvarajah and others v. United Kingdom judgment of 30

October 1991, Series A no 215, p. 37, para. 111).

The Commission has examined the circumstances of the present case

as they have been submitted by the applicants. It notes that before

the Commission the applicants have not provided any concrete

substantiation that they would suffer persecution if they returned to

Somalia.

The Commission has further had regard to the decisions of the

Federal Office for Refugees of 4 January 1995 and the Swiss Asylum

Appeals Commission of 29 March 1995. The Commission notes that the

authorities carefully examined the applicants' allegations though they

concluded that they had not established a danger of persecution upon

their return to Somalia.

As a result, the applicants have failed to show that upon their

return to Somalia they would face a real risk of being subjected to

treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.

This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3. The applicants further complain that they were not properly heard

in the proceedings before the Swiss authorities; that certain evidence

was disregarded; and that the various decisions were incorrect.

The Commission has examined this complaint under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 7 (P7-1) to the Convention which states in para. 1:

"1. An alien lawfully resident in the territory of a State

shall not be expelled therefrom except in pursuance of a decision

reached in accordance with law and shall be allowed:

(a) to submit reasons against his expulsion,

(b) to have his case reviewed, and

(c) to be represented for these purposes before the competent

authority or a person or persons designated by that

authority."

However, even assuming that the applicants were "lawfully

resident" in Switzerland within the meaning of this provision, the

Commission finds that the applicants' complaints do not disclose any

appearance of a violation of the rights set out in Article 1 para. 1

of Protocol No. 7 (P7-1). In this respect the application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3. Insofar as the applicants raise complaints under Articles 5, 13

and 14 (Art. 5, 13, 14) of the Convention, the Commission finds no

separate issue under these provisions. It follows that the remainder

of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning

of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.