CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

GE.25-20330 (E) 190126 200126

Committee against Torture

Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the

Convention, concerning communication No. 1087/2021*

Communication submitted by:

F.N. (represented by counsel, Alfred Ngoyi Wa

Mwanza)

Alleged victim:

The complainant

State Party:

Switzerland

Date of complaint:

2 August 2021 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rules 114 and 115 of

the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted

to the State Party on 9 August 2021 (not issued

in document form)

Date of adoption of decision:

14 November 2025

Subject matter:

Deportation to Angola

Procedural issue:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Substantive issue:

Risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment if deported to

country of origin (non-refoulement)

Articles of the Convention:

3 and 16

1.1

The applicant is F.N., a national of Angola born in 1981. She has filed several

applications for asylum in Switzerland, but they have been denied. She is facing deportation

to Angola and submits that her deportation would constitute a violation by the State Party of

articles 3 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 9 August 2021, pursuant to rule 114 (1) of its rules of procedure, the Committee,

acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures, requested the State

Party not to deport the complainant to Angola while her complaint was being considered.

Factual background

2.1

The complainant arrived in Switzerland on 2 January 20161 and filed an application

for asylum the same day. She claimed that, in early 2015, she had moved in with her partner,

who worked for the Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave. On 29 November 2015,

her partner’s family informed her that he had been arrested by the Movimento Popular de

* 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.

1 No details provided.

United Nations

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman

or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Distr.: General

13 January 2026

English

Original: French

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

2

GE.25-20330

Libertação de Angola but had escaped. On 1 December 2015, the complainant was

unexpectedly arrested by the police, questioned about her partner and beaten. She was taken

to hospital for her injuries, fled two days later and, with the help of a non-governmental

organization, left Angola for Switzerland.2

2.2

On 26 January 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration denied her asylum application

for lack of credibility and ordered her expulsion from Switzerland. The complainant’s appeal

against that decision was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court on 14 July 2016.

The complainant filed a first application for review, which was based on her state of health,3

but the State Secretariat denied it on 21 December 2017. The complainant’s appeal of that

decision was dismissed by the Federal Administrative Court on 1 March 2018. On

16 November 2018, the State Secretariat denied the complainant’s second application for

review, which was based on a deterioration of her health. On 26 February 2019, the State

Secretariat denied the complainant’s third application for review, in which she referred to a

severe depressive episode and post-traumatic stress disorder.4 It noted in particular that

outpatient psychiatric treatment was available through the psychiatry department of the

public hospital in Luanda or through a private clinic, that blood tests could be carried out in

both those facilities and that medication was also available. On 3 April 2019, the Federal

Administrative Court found the complainant’s appeal inadmissible on account of the fact that

she had been deported to Angola.

2.3

The complainant was deported to Angola on 6 March 2019 in what she describes as

terrible conditions. She claims to have been transported under difficult conditions from

Geneva to Zurich airport, where she boarded a flight that landed in Luanda the following day.

Despite her state of health and the pain from surgery,5 she was treated roughly by the police,

who forced her to cover her face for the journey from Geneva to Zurich. She was beaten by

the police officers for refusing to board the aircraft. They forced her to board a special flight

with 40 police officers and a few other asylum-seekers. On the journey from Zurich to

Luanda, she was kept under watch, with her hands and feet cuffed. Before arriving in Angola,

the Swiss police officers accompanying her instructed her to declare to the Angolan

authorities that she had been in Switzerland for only a month and that her visa had expired,

in other words, forcing her to hide the real reason for her deportation and the conditions of

her stay in Switzerland.

2.4

On arrival in Angola, the complainant and an older Angolan woman, who had also

been on the flight, were detained in a cell at the airport. They were immediately questioned

by the Angolan authorities about their stay in Switzerland and the reasons for their

deportation. As instructed by the Swiss police officers, the complainant stated that she had

been in Switzerland for only a month and that her visa had expired, hence her expulsion. She

withheld information about her asylum application and her long stay in Switzerland. In the

light of her statements, the Angolan authorities opened an investigation to clarify the facts.

The complainant’s account was compared with the statements by the other Angolan woman,

who had not followed the instructions of the Swiss police officers. That woman was released

after questioning, while the complainant remained detained in a cell at the airport despite her

deteriorating state of health.

2.5

During a search of her phone, the Angolan authorities found photographs taken by the

complainant while in the company of a former Angolan intelligence officer and member of

the Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave who lived in Switzerland and was wanted

by the Angolan authorities. Given this discovery, the Angolan authorities informed the

complainant on the following day that they would have to conduct an investigation to clarify

certain facts. According to the Angolan authorities, her statements about her stay and the

reason for her deportation by the Swiss authorities were unclear. They suspected her of

2 No details provided.

3 Medical report dated 19 August 2016, stating that the complainant had been receiving treatment since

19 May 2016, including for endometriosis requiring laparoscopic surgery.

4 Medical report dated 18 January 2019, according to which the complainant needs medication,

intensive weekly psychotherapy sessions and regular blood tests.

5 She does not specify the type of surgery.

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

GE.25-20330

3

concealing certain acts she had allegedly committed in Switzerland that could undermine the

State of Angola and decided to keep her in detention.

2.6

The following day, the complainant was transferred to another place of detention in

Luanda, where she remained for a week. During that week, she was interrogated about the

former Angolan intelligence officer and was threatened in order to compel her to reveal the

circumstances of her deportation and the conditions of her stay in Switzerland. She eventually

told the truth, but the authorities did not believe her statements and continued to suspect her

of involvement in subversive activities in Switzerland.

2.7

The complainant was accused of colluding with the foreign-based armed group Front

for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave. She was subjected to threats, acts of torture and

other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment while under interrogation. The authorities

asked her about the Front member in the photographs and wanted to know everything about

her relationship with him. After losing consciousness as a result of this treatment, the

complainant received care in hospital thanks to a local evangelical church, which had agreed

to cover the cost of initial medical care. A nun from the church, who had been her neighbour

prior to her departure from Angola, brought the complainant her passport, which she had left

at home. While hospitalized, the complainant was under guard by plain-clothed State agents.

2.8

On 20 March 2019, a member of the church contacted the complainant’s counsel,6 in

his capacity as her representative in Switzerland, requesting him to inform the Swiss

authorities of the complainant’s situation in Angola. The church member did not mention the

persecution that the complainant had suffered at the hands of the authorities in her country

of origin. The medical care ceased owing to a lack of resources, and the complainant returned

to her place of detention on 25 March 2019.

2.9

On the night of 25 to 26 March 2019, an official took her by force, blindfolded and

handcuffed, to a different location, where she was met by another person, who introduced

himself as the intelligence officer overseeing her case. The officer told her that, on

examination of her file, the authorities had determined that she should be convicted of spying

against the State of Angola and collaborating with enemies from abroad. He told her that he

was willing to help her by organizing a trip to Germany, where she was to work under the

orders of his colleagues and reimburse the travel expenses. The complainant accepted the

offer immediately. The officer then abused her throughout the night and into 26 March 2019.

2.10

On 27 March 2019, accompanied by the officer’s subordinates, the complainant went

to the Embassy of Germany, where her fingerprints and photographs were taken. She then

returned with the men to the location where she had been held the previous day, where she

was held under guard. On 7 April 2019, the complainant and three other girls left Angola

accompanied by two individuals and arrived in Frankfurt, Germany, the following day.

2.11

In Frankfurt, the complainant and the other girls were locked in an apartment and

forced to engage in prostitution. According to their abusers, they had to reimburse their travel

expenses. At the end of November 2019, the complainant was freed and ordered not to apply

for asylum or tell anyone, including the Swiss authorities, about the prostitution. She arrived

in Geneva using the €300 provided by her abusers.

2.12

In Geneva, the complainant initially lived on the streets, before applying for asylum.

Since her arrival in Switzerland, she has been undergoing medical treatment for

psychological problems resulting from the circumstances of her deportation in 2019 and the

acts of torture and ill-treatment to which she was subjected during her detention in Angola

and her confinement in Frankfurt.

2.13

On 10 March 2020, the complainant filed a new application for asylum with the State

Secretariat for Migration on the basis of these facts. During these proceedings, she provided

a medical report dated 14 October 2020, which established a diagnosis of post-traumatic

stress disorder and specified that she was mentally stable thanks to ongoing treatment. The

State Secretariat requested the diplomatic mission of Switzerland in Luanda to contact its

German counterpart there to obtain the complainant’s complete visa application. By letter

6 This is the same representative as before the Committee.

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

4

GE.25-20330

dated 11 December 2020, the State Secretariat transmitted the documents in that file to the

complainant’s representative, who provided comments.

2.14

On 20 January 2021, the State Secretariat for Migration denied the complainant’s

asylum application, having found her statements to be implausible, and ordered her

expulsion. It expressed doubt as to the complainant’s ill-treatment given that the interaction

with the officer who facilitated her escape in exchange for transportation to and work in

Germany had allegedly taken place on the night of 25 to 26 March 2019, yet the visa

application indicated that she had begun the process on 21 March 2019 and the complainant

had signed a statement at the Embassy of Germany on 22 March 2019.7 The State Secretariat

noted that the planning of the complainant’s travel to Germany predated her hospitalization,

the alleged visit of the officer and her agreement to work in Germany. In addition, it found it

surprising that the Angolan authorities would have taken the trouble to transfer the

complainant to a hospital after she had lost consciousness due to the alleged ill-treatment. It

also found it surprising that an officer would take the risk of helping the complainant to

escape if she had been convicted of spying against the State of Angola and collaborating with

enemies from abroad and was accused of collusion with a foreign-based armed group.

Furthermore, the State Secretariat found it illogical that the complainant would have been

able to travel using her passport while being wanted by the Angolan authorities.

2.15

As for the allegations that the complainant was a victim of trafficking in persons in

Germany, the State Secretariat for Migration found that they stemmed from the problems

allegedly experienced in Angola, which were considered unlikely to have occurred. The same

applied, therefore, to the alleged harm suffered in Germany. Consequently, in the view of the

State Secretariat, there was no need to establish the facts relating to trafficking in persons in

Germany, as requested by the complainant. The State Secretariat noted that, in her asylum

application of 10 March 2020, the complainant stated that she had been undergoing medical

treatment since her arrival in Geneva, whereas the medical report of 14 October 2020 stated

that the treatment was interrupted from March 2019 to May 2020 and that the current

treatment had begun on 29 May 2020. It therefore considered that the complainant’s

statements were not credible. Lastly, the State Secretariat noted that the medication that the

complainant needed was available in Luanda, for example at the Sagrada Esperança clinic,

as was psychotherapy.

2.16

According to the complainant, the decision denying her asylum application was not

notified to her personally or to her representative by post. It was only after the 30-day

deadline had expired that the complainant and her representative learned of the decision,

which had already become enforceable in the absence of an appeal. According to the Swiss

authorities, the written notification of the decision was not claimed and was returned to the

State Secretariat for Migration.8

2.17

On 3 May 2021, the complainant filed an application for review. On 3 June 2021, the

State Secretariat for Migration denied the application owing to inconsistencies in the

complainant’s account, which could not be explained by her psychological problems. While

the complainant’s representative had stated that, due to psychological problems caused by

the alleged violence, the complainant could not remember certain dates, the State Secretariat

argued that she had been able to recount events chronologically and that there were

inconsistencies in her account when compared against the documents submitted in support

of her visa application. The psychological problems cited did not explain these

inconsistencies. Furthermore, the State Secretariat found that the complainant could not have

so easily left her country legally given that she was accused of espionage against the Angolan

authorities and was already known to airport staff since, according to her, she had recently

been arrested on arrival in Luanda. In addition, the State Secretariat noted that the

complainant had not produced any medical report attesting to the health problems mentioned.

Referring to the medical report of 14 October 2020, the State Secretariat noted that the

7 The State Secretariat for Migration took into consideration the dates of the complainant’s statement to

the Embassy of Germany (22 March 2019), the signature on the visa application (25 March 2019), the

booking of flights (before 24 March 2019), the purchase of travel insurance (22 March 2019) and the

reservation of the hotel in Frankfurt (21 March 2019).

8 Mention of this is made in the decision of State Secretariat for Migration of 3 June 2021.

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

GE.25-20330

5

medication and treatment that the complainant needed were available in Luanda, notably at

the Luanda Hospital psychiatric department, which provides psychiatric treatment free of

charge.9

2.18

On the procedural front, the State Secretariat for Migration clarified that, even though

the asylum and expulsion decision in her case had not been appealed, it was still possible to

file a qualified application for review on the grounds that the decision was initially flawed. It

therefore considered the complainant’s request to be a qualified application for review. It also

noted that the written notification of its decision of 20 January 2021 had not been claimed

and had been returned to it. By letter dated 22 April 2021, the State Secretariat had sent the

decision of 20 January 2021 and the annexes thereto to the complainant’s representative, for

information purposes.

2.19

The complainant filed an appeal. In an interim ruling of 22 June 2021, the Federal

Administrative Court found the appeal inadmissible insofar as it sought recognition of

refugee status and the granting of asylum – whereas an application for review is an

extraordinary remedy – but gave the complainant seven days to complete her application,

which should include the new circumstances subsequent to the decision of 20 January 2021

or the grounds for review that would form the basis of her application for review. In

particular, the Federal Administrative Court found that the decision of the State Secretariat

for Migration of 20 January 2021 had been duly notified to the complainant’s representative,

who had merely stated that neither he nor the complainant had been informed of the decision,

without providing any evidence to refute the arguments used by the State Secretariat to

conclude that its decision had been duly notified. In the absence of the submission of any

grounds for appeal, the Federal Administrative Court declared the appeal inadmissible on

16 July 2021.

Complaint

3.1

The complainant claims that her expulsion to Angola would constitute a violation of

her rights under articles 3 and 16 of the Convention.

3.2

The complainant contests the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration of

20 January 2021. She claims that she was in the custody of the Angolan security services on

21 March 2019, when the travel arrangements were undertaken. The encounter with the

officer on 25 and 26 March 2019 does not undermine the veracity of her grounds for asylum.

Indeed, it is possible that her abusers had begun preparations for her trip before her encounter

with the officer on the night of 25 to 26 March 2019.

3.3

It should be noted that the complainant has psychological problems, namely post-

traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the acts of torture and ill-treatment she experienced.

These problems can affect her ability to make a plausible claim for refugee status.10 It is

highly probable that the complainant, who was the victim of rape and inhuman and degrading

treatment during her deportation from Switzerland to Angola, her time in Angola in 2019 and

her time in Germany, cannot remember certain dates linked to her grounds for asylum. Her

problems are supported by medical documentation.11

3.4

The complainant points out that her travel was organized by a prostitution ring of

which even Angolan officials are members, so it is not strange that she went through official

channels and travelled on her passport. Furthermore, the relationship between the

complainant and the former Angolan intelligence officer and member of the Front for the

Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave while she was in Switzerland was not addressed, contrary

to investigative rules.

3.5

It is clear from the case file that the complainant is a victim of trafficking in persons

and that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment falling within the scope of

article 1 of the Convention. The State Party did not treat the complainant as a victim of

trafficking and did not apply to her the special circumstances set out in the law. After her

9 Swiss Refugee Council, “Angola: psychiatric care”, 27 March 2013, p. 5.

10 Alan v. Switzerland (CAT/C/16/D/21/1995), para. 11.3.

11 This consists of two medical reports by the same doctor, dated 14 October 2020 and 20 July 2021,

which establish a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

6

GE.25-20330

deportation, she was taken by force by the Angolan authorities, which are involved in the

acts of trafficking and prostitution to which she was subjected in Germany.

3.6

The complainant’s case falls within the scope of article 3 of the Convention because

Angola offers no protection, including legal protection, to victims of trafficking in persons.

The complainant also claims that deporting her to Angola would be a violation of article 16

of the Convention, as the acts committed against her in that country amount to cruel, inhuman

or degrading treatment or punishment.

3.7

In the proceedings before the Swiss authorities, the complainant produced recent

medical reports attesting to the psychological problems she is experiencing as a result of the

inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment to which she was subjected following her

deportation from Switzerland and during her time in Angola and in Germany as a victim of

trafficking in persons. She has been undergoing medical treatment since her arrival in

Switzerland. These important facts were not taken into account during the examination of her

asylum application by the Swiss authorities, which also failed to give her an oral hearing in

relation to her application.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

On 28 March 2022, the State Party submitted its observations. It contests the

presentation of the facts by the complainant in her submission to the Committee, as it departs

from the facts presented in the decisions of the State Secretariat for Migration of 20 January

2021 and 3 June 2021. In particular, the State Party vehemently contests the complainant’s

description of her deportation to Angola on 6 March 2019, which is not corroborated by any

evidence and bears no resemblance to the actual conduct of the Swiss police officers.

4.2

The State Party underscores that the exact sequence of events in Angola, from the

enforcement of the complainant’s deportation to her departure for Germany, is not known,

as the description is based solely on the complainant’s own statements. The Swiss authorities

took the view that, given the numerous implausible and contradictory statements, the

complainant’s account of the events in Angola could not be considered credible. They also

took the view that the facts relating to possible trafficking in persons in Germany could not

be considered, as they derived entirely from the complainant’s allegations concerning the

alleged events in Angola. Moreover, the State Party emphasizes that claims of a violation of

the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings are

inadmissible, as the Committee is not competent to examine violations of provisions of other

instruments.

4.3

On the merits, the State Party notes that the arguments put forward by the complainant

before the Committee are virtually identical to those she has already put forward on numerous

occasions before the State Secretariat for Migration and the Federal Administrative Court.

Moreover, the reasons given in support of the communication have all been carefully

examined by the State Secretariat, which described them as implausible in its decision of

20 January 2021.

4.4

With regard to the complainant’s claim that the State Secretariat for Migration failed

to hear her in the context of her asylum application of 10 March 2020 and her application for

review of 3 May 2021, it should be noted that, in the context of an extraordinary procedure,

the person concerned bears a greater burden of allegation and that any new examination by

the State Secretariat must be aimed, where necessary, at verifying the authenticity of the

alleged facts or evidence adduced, but not at establishing facts not previously alleged or at

ordering the taking of new evidence. The complainant was represented by a professional

asylum lawyer, who could not be unaware of the requirements arising from these procedural

rules. Therefore, the State Secretariat rightly considered that the grounds for asylum put

forward in the application enabled it to make a decision without first hearing the complainant,

given that she had already been heard twice as part of the processing of her asylum

application in 2016.

4.5

The State Party submits that the complainant has not produced any evidence in support

of her claims, such as a medical certificate, nor has she named any witness who could confirm

her allegation that she was, among other things, treated roughly then beaten by Swiss police

officers during her deportation to Angola on 6 March 2019. Moreover, she has never

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

GE.25-20330

7

contacted a police station or the public prosecutor’s office in her canton of residence to file a

criminal complaint or a report in connection with the allegations in this communication.

Consequently, the State Party considers the allegations of torture or ill-treatment to be devoid

of credibility.

4.6

As for the complainant’s political activities, the State Party notes that the complainant

does not allege that she engaged in political activities in Angola or Switzerland. She claims,

however, to have been accused of colluding with the foreign-based armed group Front for

the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave. The State Party also notes that the complainant,

despite being accused of subversive activities, was able to leave Angola without difficulty

through the country’s main airport and in possession of her passport. It simply is not credible

that a person accused of colluding with such an armed group could leave the country so

easily.

4.7

The State Party repeats the arguments of the national courts regarding the

complainant’s credibility and the factual inconsistencies in her statements. With regard to her

medical situation, the State Party notes that the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder

was based solely on her statements to the specialist doctor in May 2020. The post-traumatic

stress disorder that has been medically observed could have any number of causes.

Accordingly, in the State Party’s view, the medical report does not establish that the

post-traumatic stress disorder necessarily results from the alleged harm. The complainant was

therefore unable to prove, or at least to render plausible, the claim that the source of her health

problems is among the reasons for her fleeing Angola.

Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations

5.1

On 27 September 2022, the complainant submitted her comments. Regarding her

deportation to Angola on 6 March 2019, she points out that it would not be the first time that

Swiss police officers have committed such violence against migrants. In its concluding

observations of 7 September 2015, the Committee had already warned of police violence in

Switzerland.12 The lack of evidence can be explained by the reasons given in the concluding

observations, namely the absence of effective and rapid investigations in such cases and the

lack of an independent body to investigate individual cases.

5.2

The complainant argues that her allegations are confirmed by the medical reports of

14 October 2020 and 20 July 2021. Her visa application proves that she spent time in

Frankfurt. As for her right to be heard, the complainant claims that the Swiss authorities

failed to take into account her relationship with a former agent of the Angolan intelligence

services and member of the Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave, who lived in

Switzerland and was wanted by the Angolan authorities.

5.3

With regard to the plausibility of her statements, the complainant asserts that her

account is precise and detailed. It is sufficiently substantiated and does not contain merely

commonplaces or generalities. The complainant’s allegations are therefore sufficiently

well-founded and do not contradict each other on essential points. If her account contains a

few contradictions, it is due to the fact that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, as

attested to by medical certificates dated 14 October 2020 and 20 July 2021. Moreover, the

way in which she was treated on her return to Angola and the fact that she was a victim of

forced prostitution are not unusual circumstances.

5.4

The complainant recalls that she has been accused by the Angolan authorities of

colluding with the foreign-based armed group Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda

Enclave. She was subjected to threats, acts of torture and other forms of inhuman and

degrading treatment while under interrogation. According to the officer of the State who later

became her pimp, she had been found guilty of spying against the State of Angola and

colluding with enemies from abroad. For all these reasons, and contrary to the State Party’s

opinion, the political activities of which she is suspected stand in the way of her return to

Angola.

12 CAT/C/CHE/CO/7, para. 10.

CAT/C/83/D/1087/2021

8

GE.25-20330

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any complaint 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.

6.3

However, the Committee notes that the complainant did not appeal the decision of

20 January 2021 by which the State Secretariat for Migration denied her asylum application.

In this regard, it notes that, in the facts section of the complaint form, the complainant stated

that neither she nor her representative had been notified of the decision of 20 January 2021

and that she had become aware of the decision only after the 30-day deadline for appeal had

expired. However, the complainant did not make any claims in that connection before the

Committee. The Committee also notes that, in its decision of 3 June 2021, the State

Secretariat explains that the written notification of the decision of 20 January 2021 was not

claimed and was therefore returned to it. The Committee points out that the complainant has

not contested this explanation before the Committee or before the domestic authorities, for

example through an application for extension of time.13 The Committee also points out that,

in its interim ruling of 22 June 2021, the Federal Administrative Court noted that the decision

of 20 January 2021 had been duly notified to the complainant’s representative, who had

merely stated that neither he nor the complainant had been informed of the decision, without

providing any evidence to refute the arguments used by the State Secretariat to conclude that

notification of its decision had been duly carried out.

6.4

The Committee further notes that, in its decision of 3 June 2021, the State Secretariat

for Migration considered the complainant’s application for review as a qualified application

for review, thus giving her the opportunity to raise the claim that the decision of 20 January

2021 was flawed. The complainant lodged an appeal against the decision of 3 June 2021 but

failed to meet the deadline set by the Federal Administrative Court for submitting a statement

of reasons in keeping with the law, thus resulting in her appeal being found inadmissible. She

has not provided an explanation of her failure to comply with the procedural requirements of

her appeal.

6.5

In the light of the forgoing and the information before it, the Committee is of the view

that the complainant failed to exercise due diligence in exhausting available remedies in time

and that it cannot attribute the fault to the State Party.14

6.6

The Committee concludes that the available remedies were not exhausted and that the

communication is therefore inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention.

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.

13 A.R. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/74/D/868/2018), para. 8.2.

14 D.B. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/66/D/820/2017), para. 6.3.