CAT/C/83/D/1082/2021

GE.25-20839 (E) 230126 260126

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22

of the Convention, concerning communication

No. 1082/2021*, **

Communication submitted by:

I.K. (represented by counsel, Brice Van Erps and

Philippe Currat)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

10 June 2021 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 115 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 2 July 2021 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

14 November 2025

Subject matter:

Deportation to France under Regulation (EU)

No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of

the Council of 26 June 2013 (the Dublin III

Regulation); summary removal (“chain

refoulement”) to the Russian Federation

Procedural issue:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Substantive issue:

None

Articles of the Convention:

2 and 3

1.1

The complainant is I.K., a national of the Russian Federation born in 1976. He claims

that, by deporting him to France, the State Party would violate his rights under articles 3, 12,

14 and 16 of the Convention. The State Party made the declaration under article 22 (1) of the

Convention on 2 December 1986. The complainant is represented by counsel.

1.2

On 2 July 2021, the Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and

interim measures, decided not to accede to the complainant’s request for interim measures.

Factual background

2.1

The complainant was born in Chechnya. Between 2000 and 2010, he was stopped five

times by the Russian security services and taken to the federal forces base in the town of

* Adopted by the Committee at its eighty-third session (10–28 November 2025).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Todd Buchwald, Jorge Contesse, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu Huawen,

Maeda Naoko, Ana Racu, Abderrazak Rouwane and Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov.

United Nations

CAT/C/83/D/1082/2021

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

5 January 2026

English

Original: French

CAT/C/83/D/1082/2021

2

GE.25-20839

Makhkety.1 The last time, in August 2010, he was questioned about the Chechen separatist

forces and pressured by the federal forces to become an informer.2 After being held in a hole

for three days, he agreed to work for the Russian federal services.3 He moved to Grozny in

late 2010 but, fearing rearrest by the Russian federal services, fled the city in July 2012.

2.2

On 30 July 2012, the complainant arrived in Switzerland4 and filed his first asylum

application there that same day, citing his fear of being detained and ill-treated again if he

returned to the Russian Federation. On 11 June 2013, the Federal Office for Migration5

rejected his application as groundless. On 22 October 2013, the Federal Administrative Court

dismissed his appeal.

2.3

On 26 November 2013, the complainant submitted a request for reconsideration of his

situation, stating that he had not been duly assisted by an interpreter during his previous

hearings. He also stated that the authorities of the State Party had interviewed him without

taking into account the post-traumatic stress that he experienced as a result of the state of war

in his country of origin. In a decision of 27 March 2014, the Federal Office for Migration

denied this request. On 12 May 2014, the complainant filed an appeal against this decision

with the Federal Administrative Court. Noting the untimely filing of the appeal, the Court

declared it inadmissible in a judgment of 14 May 2014.

2.4

On 12 February 2015, the complainant submitted a request for reconsideration of the

decision to deny him asylum and remove him from Switzerland on the basis of new

documents that he had received. On 5 May 2015, the State Secretariat for Migration denied

the request. On 6 May 2015, the complainant challenged this decision before the Federal

Administrative Court. In a judgment of 2 June 2015, the Court declared the appeal

inadmissible, as the complainant had not complied with a request for advance payment of

costs.

2.5

On 18 June 2015, the complainant was apprehended by the police and, the same day,

a police officer issued a 60-day administrative detention order with a view to his removal. In

his interview with the police officer, the complainant objected to his placement in detention.

On the date of his apprehension, he had, in fact, been hospitalized in the mental health and

psychiatry department of the Geneva University Hospitals since 6 May 2015. In a judgment

of 22 June 2015, the Administrative Court of First Instance of the Canton of Geneva upheld

the detention order against the complainant. The complainant began a hunger strike on

19 June 2015. A first removal attempt, scheduled for 23 June 2015, was unsuccessful, as the

complainant had been hospitalized the day before. In a judgment of 9 July 2015, the

Administrative Division of the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva dismissed the

complainant’s appeal against the judgment of 22 June 2015. On 3 August 2015, the Office

for Civil Registration and Migration of the Canton of Geneva ordered that the administrative

detention be lifted owing to the complainant’s state of health.

2.6

On 18 February 2016, the complainant was again placed in administrative detention

for 60 days with a view to his removal. The detention order was upheld by the Administrative

Court of First Instance of the Canton of Geneva on 22 February 2016. On 3 March 2016, the

removal order was carried out and the complainant was taken to Moscow.

2.7

The complainant claims that, when he arrived in Moscow, he was apprehended by

officers from the Federal Security Service, he and his electronic devices were searched, and

he was questioned about his reasons for fleeing to Switzerland. He was handcuffed and

beaten. Given his medicated state, he was eventually released. The complainant then travelled

to Belarus, where he remained until late April 2016, without a fixed address. On 3 or 4 May

2016, he returned to Chechnya with a people smuggler. While staying with an acquaintance

in Grozny, he was reported to the police,6 who arrested him in early June 2016. He was

1 No details provided.

2 No details provided.

3 No details provided.

4 No details provided.

5 On 1 January 2015, the Federal Office for Migration became the State Secretariat for Migration.

6 No details provided.

CAT/C/83/D/1082/2021

GE.25-20839

3

hooded and taken to a police station. Masked officers questioned him about his brothers,7

their acquaintances and the people they had fought alongside. When he did not respond, he

was beaten, suffocated with a plastic bag and electrocuted. He finally gave the names of three

of his brothers’ friends, whom he had met and seen at his house during that period, after

which he was released. Two weeks later, he was arrested again and taken to a police station

in Grozny to identify the individuals whose names he had given. He identified the three

persons. A month later, he learned that one of them had died at the hands of the police. The

family of the deceased declared a vendetta against the complainant.

2.8

Fearing retaliation from the family as well as further arrests and ill-treatment, the

complainant fled to Belarus, where he arrived in early January 2017. Unable to cross the

border with Poland, he obtained a visa for Italy at a cost of 2,500 euros.8 On 15 September

2017, he left Belarus and travelled to Switzerland via Poland, Germany and France.

2.9

On 19 October 2017, the complainant submitted a new asylum application. In a

decision of 9 January 2018, the State Secretariat for Migration dismissed the application

without entering into the substance of the case and ordered the complainant’s removal to Italy

under Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member State

responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the

member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (the Dublin III Regulation).

The complainant then travelled to France, where he submitted an asylum application on

26 February 2018. His application was denied by the French authorities, who ordered his

removal to Italy. On 25 September 2018, a deportation order was issued against him in

France. On 6 November 2018, it was reported there that he had disappeared.

2.10

On 30 November 2020, the complainant submitted a third application for asylum in

Switzerland. An investigation by the State Secretariat for Migration confirmed that he had

submitted an asylum application in France. On 21 January 2021, on the basis of the Dublin III

Regulation, Switzerland sent a request to France for the complainant to be taken back, which

the French authorities accepted.

2.11

On 28 December 2020 and 25 February 2021, the complainant expressed his position

regarding a possible removal to France. In a decision of 18 March 2021, the State Secretariat

for Migration dismissed the application without entering into the substance of the case and

ordered the complainant’s removal to France. The complainant challenged the decision

before the Federal Administrative Court, citing, among other things, a hostile climate towards

Chechen nationals in France.9 On 1 April 2021, the Court dismissed his appeal. In particular,

it found no serious reason to believe that, in the case at hand, there were systemic failings in

the asylum procedure and reception conditions for asylum-seekers in France that would entail

a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment.

2.12

On 6 July 2021, the complainant was returned to the French border, but without being

handed over to the French authorities. He returned to Switzerland illegally the same day.10

On 19 July 2023, he submitted a fourth application for asylum in Switzerland, which was

denied, in a decision of 6 June 2025, by the State Secretariat for Migration, which found that

there was no concrete, serious evidence suggesting that the complainant faced an imminent

and realistic threat of persecution by the authorities of his country. The State Secretariat

further found that the complainant had not had any specific problems with the persons who

had made threats against him and that he had not sought the assistance of the authorities with

respect to those threats. Therefore, it could not be considered that the authorities of his

7 His two brothers were killed during the two conflicts in Chechnya.

8 No details provided.

9 In his appeal of 29 March 2021, the complainant asserts that “there have been several incidents and

tragedies in France, in which Chechen nationals had been implicated. A hostile climate has thus set

in, making his already precarious stay even more difficult.”

10 The complainant initiated no procedures in France and never submitted an asylum application.

Therefore, no decision involving him was issued by France.

CAT/C/83/D/1082/2021

4

GE.25-20839

country had refused to protect him or had lacked the effective capacity to act. This denial has

since been the subject of an appeal before the Federal Administrative Court.11

2.13

With respect to the complainant’s state of health, medical reports dated 19 November

2013, 2 May 2014, 24 November 2014, 19 June 2015, 20 August 2015, 8 February 2016,

13 December 2017 and 17 March 2021 made note of post-traumatic stress disorder and a

severe depressive episode. He was prescribed medication.

Complaint

3.1

The complainant alleges that his rights under articles 2 and 3 of the Convention have

been violated. He fears that if he is removed to France under the Dublin III Regulation, he

will face a significant risk of subsequently being deported to the Russian Federation. In this

regard, the complainant refers to a controversial practice and systematic lack of diligence in

France with respect to Chechen refugees.12 He supports this claim by citing a judgment of

the European Court of Human Rights13 and adds that, in view of this practice, the State Party

is in breach of article 3 of the Convention. He notes that he was denied refugee status by the

State Party and was removed to the Russian Federation, where he states that he was subjected

to acts of torture. He fears that he will be tortured again if he is once more removed to the

Russian Federation. In this regard, he contests the assertion of the Federal Administrative

Court in its judgment of 1 April 2021 regarding the absence of systemic failings in the French

asylum procedure.

3.2

The complainant argues that his psychological state is due to post-traumatic stress

disorder, with which he was diagnosed in 2012. He was traumatized by the events that he had

lived through in Chechnya before 2012, and his condition has worsened since then,

particularly owing to the handling of his case in Switzerland between 2012 and 2016. The

orders for his placement in administrative detention, especially when he was hospitalized,

also worsened his fragile mental state. His removal in March 2016, which led to his torture

and, subsequently, his naming and the ensuing death of a Chechen friend of his brothers,

compounded his trauma. His medical file makes note of numerous experiences of trauma

related to war and his kidnapping, torture and hunger strike and the lasting personality change

that resulted. The file also indicates that the complainant is under treatment and has been

hospitalized in psychiatric facilities on numerous occasions, often against his will, in

connection with episodes of psychological decompensation. During his administrative

detention, the complainant went on a hunger strike, losing almost 30 kg, and exhibited

suicidal behaviour.

3.3

Moreover, by removing the complainant to France, the State Party would deprive him

of his network of close connections, doctors and lawyers who are working to support him.

The complainant points out that, since the war in Chechnya, he has no more close connections

in Chechnya, and all he has now is his current network in the State Party. He wishes for the

Swiss authorities to examine his asylum application on the merits.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 1 March 2022, the State Party submitted its observations on admissibility and the

merits. It notes that the complainant did not raise, even generally, the claim before the

domestic authorities that his removal to France would place him at risk of a chain removal to

11 This paragraph reflects updated information provided by complainant’s counsel, at the Committee’s

request, on 25 August 2025.

12 Amnesty International, “Russia: France’s deportation of Chechen asylum seeker Magamed Gadaev to

Russia despite risk of torture”, 16 April 2021, available at

https://www.amnesty.org/fr/documents/eur46/3999/2021/en/; The Moscow Times, “France is

complicit as Magomed Gadaev at risk of torture in Chechnya”, 14 April 2021, available at

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/04/14/france-is-complicit-as-magomed-gadaev-at-risk-of-

torture-in-chechnya-a73588; and Marianne, “La France expulse un Tchétchène dans des conditions

troubles”, 13 April 2021, available at https://www.marianne.net/monde/europe/la-france-expulse-un-

tchechene-dans-des-conditions-troubles.

13 European Court of Human Rights, K.I. v. France, Application No. 5560/19, 15 April 2021; specific

reference not provided.

CAT/C/83/D/1082/2021

GE.25-20839

5

the Russian Federation because of a systematic lack of diligence on the part of France in

processing asylum applications from persons of Chechen origin. To the extent that the

elements on which the complainant bases his claim post-date the 1 April 2021 decision of the

Federal Administrative Court, he could have put them forward in an application for

re-examination. The State Party therefore considers the claim inadmissible for failure to

exhaust domestic remedies.

4.2

On the merits, in the State Party’s view, there is no serious reason to believe that there

are systemic failings in the asylum procedure in France that would give rise to a risk of torture

or inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of article 3 or article 16 of the

Convention. It must be noted that the facts underlying the case of K.I. v. France, decided by

the European Court of Human Rights, are not comparable to the facts of the complainant’s

case. Furthermore, the complainant does not argue that he would be unable to obtain legal

advice or representation in France under conditions comparable to those in Switzerland.

4.3

With respect to the complainant’s state of health, the State Party notes that France has

medical facilities, including for psychiatric care, similar to those in Switzerland, and that the

complainant can therefore obtain in France the treatment recommended by his doctors in

Switzerland, which is not particularly intensive or complex. Asylum-seekers in France can

receive care that includes psychiatric support specifically for post-traumatic stress disorder.

The State Party acknowledges that the complainant has serious health problems. However,

the complainant does not provide any information in the communication indicating that he

would be unable to receive suitable care in France or would not have access to appropriate

treatment. Furthermore, his health conditions are not so severe or specific as to constitute in

themselves an obstacle to his return to France under the applicable principles.

4.4

Lastly, with regard to the complainant’s claim that he has a long-standing support

network in Switzerland, the State Party considers that separation from such a network does

not rise to the level of severity required to be considered treatment contrary to the

Convention.

Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations

5.1

On 9 July 2024, the complainant submitted his comments. With respect to the State

Party’s argument of inadmissibility, the complainant responds that no appeal is available

against the 1 April 2021 judgment of the Federal Administrative Court. It is precisely the

argument regarding the absence of systemic failings in the French asylum procedure that the

complainant challenges in his submission to the Committee.

5.2

The complainant notes that, in its observations, the State Party does not call into

question the risk of torture that he would face in the Russian Federation. He reiterates that

his transfer from Switzerland to France would place him at risk precisely because of the

systemic failing with respect to the removal of Chechen nationals to the Russian Federation

despite the well-documented and acknowledged risk of torture in that country.

5.3

The complainant refers to two judgments of the European Court of Human Rights,14

which he considers representative of cases in which the French authorities sought to forcibly

remove Chechen nationals to the Russian Federation without taking into account the risks of

torture involved. In his view, these two cases, involving Chechen nationals affiliated with the

radical Islamist movement, reflect a broader practice by the French authorities towards

Chechen nationals. They demonstrate that the French authorities failed in their obligation to

assess the risks associated with removal in both instances. Moreover, these cases are

contemporaneous with the complainant’s, demonstrating that the risk that his removal from

Switzerland to France would pose is still ongoing.15

14 European Court of Human Rights, W. v. France, Application No. 1348/21, 30 August 2022,

paras. 78–80; and R. v. France, Application No. 49857/20, 30 August 2022, paras. 99–106.

15 The complainant also cites a report by Amnesty International, “Europe: the point of no return”,

18 January 2024, available at https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR01/7577/2024/en/.

CAT/C/83/D/1082/2021

6

GE.25-20839

5.4

With respect to his state of health, the complainant maintains that, given the situation

in France with respect to migrants’ access to mental healthcare,16 his deportation to France

would complicate his medical treatment and obviously lead to a break in his

psychotherapeutic care and the need to build a therapeutic relationship with a new doctor, in

a general context of significant insecurity, due in particular to the proven risk of a chain

removal to the Russian Federation. These factors would constitute a particularly serious

additional source of stress capable of undoing the effects of the treatment received thus far

in Switzerland. Therefore, in the complainant’s view, the State Party is wrong in considering

that he could continue to receive the care necessitated by his condition in France.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must

decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 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.

6.2

In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not

consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual

has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case,

the State Party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic

remedies. However, the Committee notes that the purpose of the complainant’s initial

communication was to contest his transfer to France, under the Dublin III Regulation, for his

request for asylum to be considered by that country. The complainant was transferred to

France on 6 July 2021 – that is, after his communication had been registered by the

Committee – but he submitted no asylum application in France and returned to Switzerland

the same day. In the light of this information, the Committee considers that the purpose of

the initial communication, to contest his possible transfer to France, is now moot.

6.3

The Committee further notes that in his initial communication, the complainant

expressed the wish for his asylum application to be examined on the merits by the Swiss

authorities. According to the most recent information provided by the complainant to the

Committee, he submitted a new application for asylum in Switzerland on 19 July 2023, which

was denied by the State Secretariat for Migration in a decision of 6 June 2025. The Committee

notes that this new asylum application was in fact examined on the merits. The complainant

has filed an appeal, which is still pending. As a result, the Committee concludes that, pursuant

to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the communication is inadmissible because domestic

remedies have not been exhausted.

7.

The Committee therefore decides:

(a)

That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the

Convention;

(b)

That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the

State Party.

16 France terre d’asile, Répondre aux besoins en santé mentale des demandeurs d’asile: une étude

qualitative, July 2023, available at https://www.france-terre-asile.org/component/fabrik/details/1/285-

repondre-aux-besoins-de-sante-mentale-des-demandeurs-d-asile-une-etude-qualitative.