A.CH. v. SWITZERLAND
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 23579/94
by A.CH.
against Switzerland
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
11 March 1994, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
S. TRECHSEL
A. WEITZEL
E. BUSUTTIL
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
F. MARTINEZ
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
J. MUCHA
E. KONSTANTINOV
D. SVÁBY
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 21 February 1994 by
A. CH. against Switzerland and registered on 4 March 1994 under file
No. 23579/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
Facts
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows:
The applicant, a Moroccan citizen born in 1964, resides at Sion in
Switzerland.
The applicant's previous application No. 21134/93, not relating to
the present application, was declared inadmissible as being manifestly
ill-founded by the Commission on 13 January 1994.
I.
In 1985, while in Morocco, the applicant joined the clandestine
extremist leftist student movement Ilal Amam. He knew approximately ten
members of this movement and participated in various meetings. On 6
January 1988 the applicant was arrested and detained by the police for
24 hours for having been seen in a public place with a girl after a
certain hour, which was an offence under Islamic law. However, the
detention apparently served the purpose of questioning the applicant
about his political opinions. He was released upon intervention of a
policeman, the father of a friend of his.
From March to June 1989 the applicant participated in numerous
student demonstrations in Meknès. He organised one such demonstration
in March 1989. Between 27 May and 2 June 1989 certain students boycotted
the university examinations in order to protest against the dictatorship
in Morocco. As a result, security forces intervened at the university
and arrested numerous students. Later in June the authorities declared
that they would not undertake any further arrests during the period of
university examinations. However, the applicant was told by a friend
that the police were searching for him and he stayed with his brother
until the end of June when he attended the examinations. He then decided
to leave the country for fear of being arrested. On 31 August he
travelled from Morocco to Spain with his valid passport.
II.
On 2 September 1989 the applicant entered Switzerland where he
applied for asylum on 12 September 1989.
On 12 May 1992 the Federal Office for Refugees (Office fédéral des
réfugiés) refused the applicant's request for asylum as he had failed to
show that he had been politically active in Morocco. The Office
considered that the applicant had not convincingly presented the
developments at the university in 1989, in particular the student
demonstrations and the role he had played in them. The fact that the
applicant had participated in the examinations at the end of June 1989
contradicted his statement that he feared arrest. Moreover, the
applicant had left Morocco using the normal itinerary.
The applicant filed an appeal which the Swiss Appeals Commission in
Matters of Asylum (Commission suisse de recours en matière d'asile)
dismissed on 11 January 1994. The Commission found that in his appeal
the applicant had merely reiterated his earlier arguments, and no
temporal link had been established between his alleged persecution in
January 1988 and his departure from Morocco in August 1989. It was also
unlikely that participation in student demonstrations should be a ground
for persecution as the applicant himself had stated that he had not
suffered any prejudice after organising one such demonstration in
March 1989.
The applicant has been ordered to leave Switzerland before
30 April 1994.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains of his imminent expulsion to Morocco where
he risks being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the
Convention.
Considerations
THE LAW
The applicant complains that if he is expelled to Morocco he risks
ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.
The Commission has constantly held that the right of an alien to
reside in a particular country is not as such guaranteed by the
Convention. However, 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 3 (Art. 3) of the
Convention in the country to which the person is to be expelled (see. No.
10564/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 262; mutatis mutandis European
Court H.R., Soering judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No. 161, p. 32 et
seq., paras. 81 et seq.).
Insofar as the applicant relies in support of his submissions on
various press articles relating to the general political situation in
Morocco, the Commission further recalls that 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 H.R., Vilvarajah and others judgment of
30 October 1991, Series A No. 215, p. 37, para. 111).
The applicant has not provided any other document or evidence
confirming his allegations as to inhuman treatment in Morocco.
The Commission has therefore had regard to the decisions of the
Swiss authorities, in particular those of the Federal Office for Refugees
of 12 May 1992 and of the Swiss Appeals Commission in Matters of Asylum
of 11 January 1994. The Commission notes that the Swiss authorities
carefully examined the applicant's allegations. Thus, in its decision
of 12 May 1992 the Federal Office for Refugees considered that the fact
that the applicant had participated in the examinations in June 1989
contradicted his statement that he feared arrest. The Swiss Appeals
Commission in Matters of Asylum considered in its decision of
11 January 1994 that there had been no temporal link between the
applicant's alleged persecution in January 1988 and his departure from
Morocco in August 1989, and noted that the applicant himself had stated
that he had not suffered any prejudice after organising a demonstration
in March 1989.
The Commission does not find it unreasonable if the Swiss
authorities, in view of these considerations and other contradictions in
the applicant's submissions, concluded that he had not credibly
established that he had been persecuted on the grounds of his political
convictions.
As a result, the applicant has failed to show that upon his return
to Morocco he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment
contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. The application is
therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para.
2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
Order
For these reasons the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)