P.M. AND G.M. v. SWITZERLAND

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain under Articles 2 and 3 (Art. 2, 3) of the

Convention of their expulsion to the Democratic Republic of Congo. The

first applicant submits that she was beaten and raped, and that she

became pregnant as a result of her having been raped.

The Commission has examined these complaints under 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, 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 Eur. Court HR, Chahal v. United Kingdom judgment of 15

November 1996, Reports 1996-V, No. 22, paras. 72 ff).

Nevertheless, 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.

However, the Commission notes that the applicants have not

provided any substantiation of their fears concerning ill-treatment

upon their return to the Democratic Republic of Congo. It has not been

contended that the inhuman treatment allegedly suffered by the first

applicant emanated from the authorities, or that upon the applicants'

return such treatment also had to be feared from the authorities of the

new Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Commission further notes the domestic authorities' conclusion

according to which the first applicant's submissions concerning her

life companion did not appear credible. Moreover, she had failed to

refer to her pregnancy when questioned by the Swiss authorities on

13 November and 9 December 1996 and that therefore it was not found

that there was a relationship between her pregnancy and her having been

raped.

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

return to the Democratic Republic of Congo 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.

2. The applicants complain under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention that they were not duly heard in the domestic proceedings.

However, Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not apply to

such proceedings (see No. 8118/77, Dec. 19.3.81, D.R. 25, p. 105). The

Commission has nevertheless examined this complaint under Article 1 of

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

The remainder of the application is therefore also manifestly

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

Convention.