| United Nations |
联合国 |
| Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment |
禁止酷刑和其他残忍、不人道 |
| Committee against Torture |
或有辱人格的待遇或处罚公约 禁止酷刑委员会 |
| Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the Convention, concerning communication No. 782/2016, |
委员会根据《公约》第22条通过的关于第782/2016号来文的决定、 |
| Communication submitted by: |
来文提交人： |
| Hany Khater (represented by Mr. Rachid Mesli, Alkarama) (not represented by counsel) |
Hany Khater (由阿尔卡拉马基金会的律师Rachid Mesli代理)(无律师代理) |
| Alleged victim: |
据称受害人： |
| The complainant |
申诉人 |
| State party: |
所涉缔约国： |
| Morocco |
摩洛哥 |
| Date of complaint: |
申诉日期： |
| 14 November 2016 (initial submission) |
2016年11月14日(首次提交) |
| Document references: |
参考文件： |
| Decision taken pursuant to rules 114 and 115 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to the State party on 15
November 2016 (not issued in document form) |
根据委员会议事规则第114和第115条作出的决定，已于2016年11月15日转交缔约国(未以文件形式印发) |
| Date of adoption of decision: |
决定通过日期： |
| 22 November 2019 |
2019年11月22日 |
| Date of present decision |
本决定日期： |
| 22 November 2019 |
2019年11月22日 |
| Subject matter: |
事由： |
| Extradition of the complainant to Egypt |
将申诉人引渡到埃及 |
| Procedural issues: |
程序性问题： |
| Exhaustion of domestic remedies; |
用尽国内补救办法； |
| admissibility – non-substantiation |
可否受理――证据不足 |
| Substantive issues: |
实质性问题： |
| Risk of torture in the event of extradition on political grounds (non-refoulement); |
基于政治理由被引渡后存在酷刑风险 (不推回)； |
| ill-treatment in detention; |
拘留期间受到虐待； |
| risk of torture upon deportation |
递解后存在酷刑风险 |
| Articles of the Convention: |
《公约》条款： |
| 3 and 16 |
第3和第16条 |
| 1. |
1. |
| At its meeting on 26 July 2019, the Committee,
having received a request from the State party for discontinuance, and
noting the fact that the complainant had become a permanent resident of
Canada on 5 March 2018 and that therefore the communication was moot,
decided to discontinue the consideration of communication No. 665/2015. |
鉴于已收到缔约国停止审议的请求，并注意到申诉人已于2018年3月5日成为加拿大永久居民，因此来文已不具实际意义，委员会在2019年7月26日举行的会议上决定停止对第665/2015号来文的审议。 |
| At its meeting on 28 April 2021, the Committee, not
having received comments from the complainant’s counsel on the State
party’s observations, despite sending three reminders to that effect,
decided to discontinue the examination of communication No. 940/2019. |
鉴于已三次发送提醒函但仍未收到申诉人律师对缔约国意见的评论，委员会在2021年4月28日的会议上决定停止对第940/2019号来文的审查。 |
| At its meeting on 28 April 2021, the Committee,
having been informed that the expulsion order against the complainant
had become statute-barred on 20 April 2020 and that he could submit a
new application for asylum in Sweden, decided to discontinue the
examination of communication No. 919/2019, on the understanding that the
complainant would be entitled to submit a new communication to the
Committee should he face a renewed risk of forcible removal from the
State party’s territory. |
委员会获悉对提交人的驱逐令已于2020年4月20日逾期失效，他已可以向瑞典提交新的庇护申请，因此在2021年4月28日的会议上决定停止对第919/2019号来文的审查，但有一项谅解，即申诉人如再次面临被强行逐出缔约国领土的风险，有权向委员会提交新的来文。 |
| 2. |
2. |
| The complainant states that his extradition would
constitute a violation by Morocco of its obligations under article 3 of
the Convention. |
申诉人称，摩洛哥将其引渡将构成违反《公约》第3条所规定义务的行为。 |
| He claims a violation of his rights under articles 2 and 13 of the Convention. |
他声称，他在《公约》第2和第13条下的权利受到侵犯。 |
| 3. |
3. |
| On 15 November 2016, the Committee, pursuant to rule
114 of its rules of procedure, decided to request interim measures by
asking the State party not to extradite the complainant to Egypt while
the complaint was under the Committee’s consideration. |
2016年11月15日，委员会根据其议事规则第114条行事，决定要求采取临时措施，请缔约国在委员会审议申诉人的申诉期间不要将其引渡到埃及。 |
| On 29 December 2016, the State party requested the Committee to lift its request for interim measures. |
2016年12月29日，缔约国请委员会撤销其关于临时措施的请求。 |
| The facts as submitted by the complainant |
申诉人陈述的事实 |
| The complaint |
申诉 |
| State party’s request to suspend |
缔约国关于暂停审议来文的请求 |
| State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits |
缔约国关于可否受理和实质问题的意见 |
| Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations |
申诉人对缔约国意见的评论 |
| Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits |
申诉人对缔约国关于可否受理和实质问题的意见的评论 |
| Additional information from the complainant |
申请人提供的补充资料 |
| Additional submission from the complainant |
申诉人的补充陈述 |
| Additional submission from the State party |
缔约国的补充陈述 |
| State party’s additional observations |
缔约国的补充意见 |
| Complainant’s additional comments |
申诉人的补充评论 |
| Issues and proceedings before the Committee |
委员会需处理的问题和议事情况 |
| The State party’s failure to cooperate and to
respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule
114 of its rules of procedures |
缔约国不予合作，未尊重委员会根据议事规则第114条提出的采取临时措施的请求 |
| 4. |
4. |
| The Committee notes that the adoption of interim
measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, in accordance
with article 22 of the Convention, is vital to the role entrusted to the
Committee under that article. |
委员会注意到，按照《公约》第22条的规定采取委员会议事规则第114条所述的临时措施，对委员会履行第22条赋予的职责至关重要。 |
| Failure to respect the interim measure requested by
the Committee, in particular through such irreparable action as
extraditing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights
enshrined in the Convention. |
不尊重委员会提出的采取临时措施的请求，尤其是采取引渡据称受害人此类无法弥补的行动，将削弱对《公约》所载权利的保护。 |
| Consideration of admissibility |
审议可否受理 |
| 5. |
5. |
| Before considering any claim submitted in a
communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under
article 22 of the Convention. |
在审议来文所载的任何申诉之前，委员会必须决定来文是否符合《公约》第22条规定的受理条件。 |
| The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to
do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has
not been and is not being examined under another procedure of
international investigation or settlement. |
按照《公约》第22条第5款(a)项的要求，委员会已确定同一事项过去和现在均未受到另一国际调查或解决程序的审查。 |
| 6. |
6. |
| The Committee recalls that, in accordance with
article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider
any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the
individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. |
委员会回顾，根据《公约》第22条第5款(b)项，除非能够断定个人已用尽一切国内补救办法，否则不应审议其提交的任何来文。 |
| The Committee notes that, in the present case, the
State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all
available domestic remedies. |
委员会注意到，在本案中缔约国没有对申诉人已用尽一切国内补救办法提出异议。 |
| The Committee therefore finds that it is not
precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of
the Convention. |
因此，委员会认为《公约》第22条第5款(b)项的规定不妨碍委员会审议本来文。 |
| 7. |
7. |
| In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the
Convention, the Committee must ascertain whether the complainant has
exhausted all available domestic remedies, although this shall not be
the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged
or is unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. |
按照《公约》第22条第5款(b)项，委员会必须确定申诉人已用尽一切国内补救办法，但在补救办法的施行已发生不当稽延或对据称受害人不可能提供有效救济的情况下，本规则不适用。 |
| 8. |
8. |
| The Committee finds that the communication is
admissible under article 22 of the Convention with respect to the
alleged violation of article 3 and article 16, and proceeds with its
consideration of the merits. |
委员会认为，根据《公约》第22条，就指称违反第3和第16条而言，来文可予受理，并着手审议实质问题。 |
| Consideration of the merits |
审议实质问题 |
| 9. |
9. |
| The Committee has considered the communication in
the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in
accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. |
委员会依照《公约》第22条第4款，参照当事各方提供的所有材料审议了本来文。 |
| 10. |
10. |
| In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention,
the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of
all the information made available to it by the parties. |
依照《公约》第22条第4款，委员会参照当事各方提供的所有材料审议了本来文。 |
| 11. |
11. |
| The Committee recalls that the prohibition of
torture is absolute and non-derogable and that no exceptional
circumstances whatsoever may be invoked by a State party to justify acts
of torture. |
委员会回顾，禁止酷刑是绝对的和不可克减的，缔约国不得援引任何特殊情况作为施行酷刑的理由。 |
| The principle of “non-refoulement” of persons to
another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that
they would be in danger of being subjected to torture, set out in
article 3 of the Convention, is similarly absolute. |
《公约》第3条所规定的对于有充分理由相信在另一国家将有遭受酷刑危险的人员“不予推回”的原则同样是绝对的。 |
| 12. |
12. |
| In the present case, the issue before the Committee
is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Pakistan would
constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3
of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to
another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he
or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. |
在本案中，委员会要处理的问题是，将申诉人强制驱逐回巴基斯坦是否会违反缔约国根据《公约》第3条承担的义务， 即如有充分理由相信任何人在另一国家将有遭受酷刑的危险，不得将该人驱逐或遣返至该国。 |
| The Committee must evaluate whether there are
substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be
personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to
Pakistan. |
委员会必须评估是否有充分理由认为返回巴基斯坦后申诉人本人将有遭受酷刑的危险。 |
| In assessing whether there are substantial grounds
for believing that the alleged victim would be in danger of being
subjected to torture, the Committee recalls that, under article 3 (2) of
the Convention, States parties must take into account all relevant
considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country to
which he or she would be returned. |
在评估是否有充分理由认为据称受害人有遭受酷刑的危险时，委员会回顾，根据《公约》第3条第2款，缔约国必须考虑到所有相关因素，包括在此人将要返回的国家是否存在一贯严重、公然或大规模侵犯人权的情况。 |
| 13. |
13. |
| In the present case, the Committee must determine
whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to
torture if he is extradited to Egypt. |
在本案中，委员会必须确定，申诉人如果被引渡到埃及，是否面临针对个人的酷刑风险。 |
| The existence of a consistent pattern of gross,
flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as
such constitute sufficient reason for determining that the complainant
would be in danger of being subjected to torture if extradited to that
country; |
一国存在一贯严重、公然或大规模侵犯人权的情况本身并不构成可以认定申诉人被引渡到该国后将有遭受酷刑危险的充分理由； |
| additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. |
还必须提出其他理由证明当事人本人面临风险。 |
| Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of
flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might
not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. |
反之，不存在一贯公然侵犯人权情况也不意味着一个人在其所处的特定情况下不会遭受酷刑。 |
| 14. |
14. |
| The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4
(2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the
context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement obligation
exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the
person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a
State to which the person is facing deportation, either as an individual
or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the
State of destination. |
委员会回顾其关于参照《公约》第22条执行第3条的第4号一般性意见(2017年)，其中指出，只要有“充分理由”相信，当事人无论是作为个人还是作为有可能在目的地国遭受酷刑的一个群体的成员，在将被递解至的国家内有遭受酷刑的危险，便存在不推回义务。 |
| The Committee’s practice in this context has been to
determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture
is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”. |
委员会在这种情况下的惯例是，只要酷刑风险是“可预见、针对个人、现实存在而且真实的”，便认定存在“充分理由”。 |
| The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4
(2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22,
according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and
consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real
when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at
the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant
under the Convention in case of the complainant’s deportation. |
委员会回顾其关于参照《公约》第22条执行第3条的第4号一般性意见(2017年)，其中指出，委员会将评
估“充分理由”，在委员会作出决定时，如果申诉人被递解，其根据《公约》享有的权利会因为存在与酷刑风险相关的事实本身受到影响，则委员会认为酷刑风险是
可预见、针对个人、现实存在而且真实的。 |
| 15. |
15. |
| It also recalls that the burden of proof lies with
the complainant, who must present an arguable case, that is to say,
submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being
subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. |
委员会还回顾，举证责任由来文申诉人承担，申诉人必须提出可以论证的理由，即提出确凿论据表明遭受酷刑的危险是可预见、现实存在、针对个人而且真实的。 |
| However, when complainants are in a situation where
they cannot elaborate on their case, the burden of proof is reversed and
the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify
the information on which the complaint is based. |
然而，当申诉人无法就其案件提供详细资料时，则应倒置举证责任，所涉缔约国须对指称进行调查并核实申诉所依据的信息。 |
| 16. |
16. |
| The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; |
委员会还回顾，委员会相当重视所涉缔约国机关的事实调查结论； |
| however, it is not bound by such findings and will
make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance
with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the
circumstances relevant to each case. |
但委员会不受这种结论的约束，并将考虑到每一案件的全部相关案情，依照《公约》第22条第4款，自由评估所掌握的资料。 |
| 17. |
17. |
| The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the
Convention, decides that the facts before it reveal a violation by the
State party of articles 12, 13 and 14 of the Convention. |
委员会依据《公约》第22条第7款行事，认定现有事实表明缔约国违反了《公约》第12、第13和第14条。 |
| The Committee therefore concludes that the
complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds to enable it to believe
that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and present risk of
being subjected to torture upon return to Pakistan. |
因此，委员会得出结论认为，申诉人没有提出充分理由使委员会认为他在返回巴基斯坦后会面临真实、可预见、针对个人而且现实存在的遭受酷刑的风险。 |
| The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the
Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Pakistan by the
State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the
Convention. |
委员会依据《公约》第22条第7款行事，得出结论认为，缔约国将申诉人遣返巴基斯坦并不违反《公约》第3条。 |
| 18. |
18. |
| Pursuant to rule 118, paragraph 5, of its rules of
procedure, the Committee invites the State party to inform it, within 90
days from the date of transmittal of the present decision, of the steps
it has taken to respond to the above observations. |
委员会根据其议事规则第118条第5款，请缔约国自本决定送交之日起90天内通报根据上述意见所采取的措施。 |
| * Adopted by the Committee at its sixty-eighth session (11 November–6 December 2019). |
* 委员会第六十八届会议(2019年11月11日至12月6日)通过。 |
| ** The following members of the Committee
participated in the examination of the communication: Felice Gaer,
Abdelwahab Hani, Claude Heller Rouassant, Jens Modvig, Ana Racu, Diego
Rodríguez-Pinzón, Sébastien Touzé, Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov and Honghong
Zhang. |
** 委员会下列委员参加了本来文的审查：费利斯·盖尔、阿卜杜勒瓦哈卜·哈尼、克劳德•埃莱尔•鲁阿桑特、延斯·莫德维格、阿娜·拉库、迭戈·罗德里格斯－平松、塞巴斯蒂安·图泽、巴赫季亚尔•图兹穆哈梅多夫和张红虹。 |
| Pursuant to rule 109, read in conjunction with rule
15, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, and paragraph 10 of the
guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human
rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines), Essadia Belmir did
not participate in the examination of the communication. |
根据委员会议事规则第109条(结合第15条一并解读)以及《人权条约机构成员独立性和公正性准则》(《亚的斯亚贝巴准则》)第10段，艾萨迪亚·贝尔米没有参加对来文的审查。 |
