Decision; Subjects: SWITZERLAND, TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL TREATMENT; [CAT: UNO-Antifolterkonvention, Übereinkommen gegen Folter; Convention contre la torture; Convenzione contro la tortura]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-19041 (E) 090126 090126
Committee against Torture
Decision adopted by the Committee under article 22 of the
Convention, concerning communication No. 1131/2022*, **
Communication submitted by:
K.S. (represented by counsel, Didier Bottge)
Alleged victim:
The complainant
State Party:
Switzerland
Date of complaint:
23 May 2022 (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 8 June 2022 (not issued in
document form)
Date of adoption of decision:
17 November 2025
Subject matter:
Deportation to Togo
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, 14 and 16
1.1
The complainant is K.S., a national of Togo born in 1985. He applied for asylum in
Switzerland, but his application was rejected. He is facing removal to Togo and claims that
his removal would constitute a violation by the State Party of articles 3, 14 and 16 of the
Convention. The State Party made the declaration provided for in article 22 (1) of the
Convention on 2 December 1986. The complainant is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 8 June 2022, pursuant to rule 114 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 Togo while his complaint was being considered.
1.3
On 14 June 2022, the State Party informed the Committee that, in accordance with its
established procedure, the State Secretariat for Migration had requested the competent
authority to refrain from taking any steps to deport the complainant, who was therefore
assured of remaining in Switzerland pending the consideration of his complaint by the
Committee.
* 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 Singh, Claude Heller, Erdogan Iscan, Peter Vedel Kessing, Liu
Huawen, Maeda Naoko, Ana Racu and Abderrazak Rouwane.
United Nations
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
Convention against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Distr.: General
31 December 2025
English
Original: French
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
2
GE.25-19041
Factual background
2.1
In 2012, the complainant trained as an offshore petroleum engineer in Gabon and
worked for two months on a drilling platform in Togo. However, his work came to an end
when the Togolese authorities refused to issue a seaman’s book to the members of his team.
Following this refusal, one of his colleagues complained to the press and revealed the
existence of oil and gas deposits that had been kept secret by the Government of Togo. These
revelations led to acts of repression committed by the Togolese authorities against the
complainant and his family. In January 2013, fires broke out at major markets in Lomé and
Kara. The complainant, a member of the organization Nouveaux droits de l’homme (New
Human Rights) since 2010, was appointed to investigate the people who had allegedly started
the fires, in order to clear their names. In the course of his investigations, in July and August
2014, he tried unsuccessfully to interview the chief of the gendarmerie in Lomé, and on
11 September 2014, he met with an opposition leader who reportedly promised to put him in
touch with people who would be able to shed light on the oil affair.1
2.2
The complainant was abducted from his home by three unknown persons on
13 September 2014 and was held at an unknown location from 13 to 29 September 2014. On
29 September 2014, a man who claimed to be acting on the orders of one of the brothers of
the President of the Republic came to free him. The man took him to Ghana, where he
remained until 20 October, when he returned to Togo. He stayed in Togo before flying to
Hamburg, Germany, on 3 November 2014. The complainant had obtained a Schengen visa
beforehand from the Embassy of Germany in Togo by using a false marriage certificate to
pose as the husband of a woman with whom he then travelled. On 7 November 2014, he
arrived in Switzerland. He knew no one in Switzerland and ended up staying for six and a
half months with a man who tried to take advantage of him.2 The complainant applied for
asylum in Switzerland on 22 May 2015.
2.3
The State Secretariat for Migration interviewed the complainant on 15 June 2015. On
22 September 2015, the State Secretariat informed him that the procedure opened 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) had been closed,
as Germany was no longer competent because the visa issued by its authorities had expired
more than six months previously. In March 2016, the complainant was taken to hospital by
the police following a suicide attempt. On 17 May 2016, the complainant was interviewed
by the State Secretariat in depth about his reasons for seeking asylum.
2.4
On 20 May 2016, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s
asylum application and ordered his return. It considered the complainant’s account of the
circumstances of his abduction to be implausible. When asked during his second interview
to describe his abduction, the complainant had given what sounded like a rehearsed response,
repeating almost word for word what he had said at his first interview. The State Secretariat
found it striking that, at that point, the complainant had been unable to give any details of the
events he claimed to have experienced. This was taken as a further indication that the alleged
abduction was a story made up to support his application. The State Secretariat further noted
that, when asked to elaborate on his statements, the complainant had been unable, for
example, to describe his kidnappers in any way, saying only that they were strong, and had
given similarly brief responses when asked to describe the moment when he got out of the
car, the warehouse where he had been detained and his release.
2.5
The State Secretariat for Migration found it hard to believe the complainant’s claim
that the brother of the President of the Republic was behind his release. The complainant had
been unable to explain how the President’s brother had learned of his abduction and why he
had acted in the way that he did. The State Secretariat noted that it made little sense that the
complainant had not had to pay any travel expenses and that he had been helped by a stranger
1 A report published on 30 November 2017 by the Association togolaise des droits de l’homme
(Togolese Human Rights Association) mentions the disappearance of all the sailors who had been
working on the platform.
2 No details provided.
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
GE.25-19041
3
to leave the country. The State Secretariat also expressed surprise that the complainant, who
claimed to have felt threatened in his home country, had not applied for asylum directly in
Germany and had not applied for asylum in Switzerland until six months after his arrival.
This attitude is all the more puzzling as the complainant is an educated man and must have
been aware of the protection available in Switzerland when he arrived in the country.
Moreover, the notion that he left his passport with someone he met by chance at a railway
station seems to go against what any sensible person would do in the same situation, given
the importance of such a document.
2.6
Lastly, the State Secretariat for Migration noted that the complainant had made
contradictory statements about his last address in Togo. As for the evidence submitted, it did
not demonstrate that the complainant was afraid of being persecuted in Togo.
2.7
On 2 June 2016, the complainant appealed against the decision of the State Secretariat
for Migration. He stated that he had joined the human rights association in 2010 and had
regularly taken part in opposition marches and meetings of the ruling party. He stated that he
had not sought protection immediately upon arrival in Switzerland because he had put his
trust in the process that he had been told to follow by the person he had met. The complainant
added that he had health problems that prevented him from being returned to Togo. On 7 July
2016, the complainant submitted a medical report stating that he had been hospitalized from
6 to 8 March 2016 for his own protection after making plans to commit suicide during a
moderate depressive episode. The complainant then refused to take medication.
2.8
On 7 August 2017, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the complainant’s
appeal, ruling that his claims concerning the reasons for his abduction and the circumstances
of his detention were implausible. It was not credible that his captors had not spoken to him
during the two weeks that he was detained or made any demands. Furthermore, the
complainant had been unable to explain how he would be at risk in Togo, since the President’s
brother had intervened on his behalf. The Court also noted that, generally speaking, the
complainant’s account lacked substance, and it did not seem plausible that he had been so
lucky as to have fortuitously made the acquaintance of several people who had come to his
aid for no reason and had generously financed his exile: a complete stranger had supposedly
freed him from detention, had him sign a forged marriage certificate, obtained a visa for him
and fully financed his journey to Switzerland, for no particular reason. Another person had
supposedly provided him with food and lodging in Germany for around a week, without
receiving anything in return, and had even given him money on his departure that had covered
the cost of a train ticket to Switzerland. A third stranger had supposedly provided him with
board and lodging in Switzerland for several months. Lastly, the Court found that the fact
that the complainant had not been put on medication when he left the psychiatric hospital
showed that his case was not a very serious one, and that the complainant had failed to
demonstrate that he faced a personal, real, concrete and serious risk of being subjected to
torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he were to be returned to his country.
2.9
On 25 September 2017, the complainant filed an initial application for his case to be
re-examined by the State Secretariat for Migration on the grounds that his state of health had
deteriorated.3 On 26 October 2017, the State Secretariat rejected the application, arguing that
the complainant’s mental health problems could not be considered acute on the basis of the
medical certificate provided, which referred to a worsening of his state of health without
giving further details. The complainant did not appeal against this decision, which has now
become final.
2.10
On 15 January 2018, the complainant submitted a second application for his case to
be re-examined on the grounds that his mental health had deteriorated. The complainant
asserted that his obvious depression and his suicidal thoughts were the result of the removal
order handed down by the Federal Administrative Court. The complainant also provided
some new information: according to an investigation report by the Association togolaise des
droits de l’homme dated 30 November 2017, five officers had gone to his former partner’s
home in Togo to force her to reveal where he was living. Threats had been made, and his
former partner and their daughter had been forced to flee to Benin. On 25 January 2018, the
3 The complainant provided a medical certificate dated 12 September 2017.
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
4
GE.25-19041
State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s application on the grounds that his
state of health had not changed since 26 October 2017 and that the investigation report did
not contain any new information – it had been drawn up on the basis of statements by third
parties and therefore could not be used to establish the existence of a well-founded fear of
persecution. On 7 June 2018, the complainant filed an appeal with the Federal Administrative
Court, which was declared inadmissible on 13 June 2018 on the grounds that it had been filed
too late.
2.11
On 20 September 2018, the complainant filed a second application for asylum, citing,
firstly, the fact that his family had received threats since the publication of two articles telling
his story in the Togolese media, and, secondly, the fact that the other people who had been
working on the oil rig were allegedly wanted by the Togolese authorities for having disclosed
information about the presence of oil and gas deposits off the coast of Togo, as proved by the
statement of a former colleague who had sought refuge China. On 6 November 2018, the
State Secretariat for Migration rejected this application and ordered the complainant’s
removal and the enforcement of the removal order. The State Secretariat considered that the
complainant had not proved that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in the event of his
return to his country of origin. The State Secretariat was of the view that the evidence
submitted in support of his second asylum application had no probative value, as it did not
lend his story greater credibility. The State Secretariat pointed out that it was well known that
it was possible to have fake articles published in the Togolese press in exchange for payment.
2.12
On 23 January 2019, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s
appeal. It ruled that the testimonies presented were not credible and confirmed that it was
possible to have fake articles published in Togo.4 Moreover, the newspaper articles merely
related statements that the Court had found implausible in its 7 August 2017 ruling and were
therefore irrelevant. The Court did not rule out the possibility that the extracts provided had
been falsified: the font and font size used in one of the two articles recounting the
complainant’s alleged story differed from those used in the other articles on the same page,
and one of the newspapers was dated Friday, 3 August 2018, even though the newspaper was
a weekly that came out on Thursdays. Lastly, the Court noted that the complainant had made
no further reference to any health problems.
2.13
On 2 March 2019, the complainant filed an application for his case to be re-examined
on medical grounds, submitting medical certificates dated 6 March 2016. On 8 March 2019,
he filed a third asylum application. He pointed to the arrest, on 3 March 2019, of his brother,
who had also worked on oil rigs, had escaped an attempted kidnapping and had been accused
by the Togolese authorities of revealing secret information about the oil platform to the press.
The complainant also claimed that his former partner had been abducted by the police, who
had asked her where the complainant was. The complainant also informed the State
Secretariat for Migration that criminal investigation officers had visited his home to deliver
a summons against him. On 19 March 2019, the State Secretariat suspended the
complainant’s removal.
2.14
On 3 April 2019, the State Secretariat for Migration rejected the complainant’s asylum
application. It noted that the complainant had not provided any detailed information about
his brother’s arrest, regarding either the date of arrest or the place of detention, even though
he had mentioned that his uncle had found his brother and knew the reasons for his arrest. In
addition, the photographs of the alleged arrest of his former partner proved neither the
identity of the person nor the reasons for the arrest. Lastly, the State Secretariat could not
understand why the Directorate General of Police would have issued a summons for
25 March 2019, when the complainant had been in Switzerland since 2015. Moreover, the
document submitted was only a copy of the summons and therefore had no probative value.
2.15
On 27 April 2021, the Federal Administrative Court rejected the complainant’s
appeal. It noted, in particular, that during the hearings that were held as part of the initial
asylum procedure, the complainant had never mentioned that his brother had worked on the
same drilling platform as him in 2012. The Court also examined the form and content of the
4 The Court refers to two reports published by non-governmental organizations in 2016 and 2017.
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
GE.25-19041
5
additional summonses 5 submitted by the complainant and concluded that they did not
corroborate his claims that he was wanted by the Togolese authorities. Firstly, the fields
provided for the acknowledgement of receipt had not been completed or detached, raising
the question of how the complainant’s relatives had come into possession of the summonses.
Secondly, the documents did not indicate the purpose of the summons, the applicable legal
provision or the penalty for refusing to appear. Moreover, since the documents had been
issued more than four years after he had left the country and more than six years after he had
stopped working as a petroleum engineer on an offshore drilling platform, it had by no means
been established that they were directly and temporally linked to that work. If the Togolese
authorities really were searching for the complainant in a targeted manner in order to arrest
him as part of a State plot to neutralize certain people who were in possession of information
about the clandestine extraction and sale of oil, it made little sense that they would have
waited until March and April 2019 to merely summon the complainant and to attack his
relatives.
2.16
Regarding the complainant’s state of health, the Court noted that although he had
referred to a worsening of his psychological symptoms in his letter of 2 March 2019 and to
suicidal thoughts during the proceedings, he had not submitted any medical documents to
substantiate his claims. In any event, the complainant would be able to receive psychiatric
treatment in Togo if necessary.
2.17
A hospital discharge letter dated 16 June 2021 states that the complainant was
hospitalized in the psychiatric ward from 11 May to 4 June 2021 for protection from suicidal
thoughts. On 8 September 2021, the complainant submitted to the cantonal authority an
application for regularization, which was rejected on 14 April 2022.
2.18
On 13 September 2021, the complainant filed a third application for his case to be
re-examined by the State Secretariat for Migration. To support his request, he referred to an
article published in the newspaper Liberté on 6 July 2021 entitled “Le Trésor français révèle
que le Togo exporte du pétrole raffiné” (The French Treasury reveals that Togo exports
refined petroleum). He claimed that the Banque de France had published erroneous data on
petroleum sales by Togo and noted that the article of 6 July 2021 mentioned figures reported
by the French Treasury. The complainant also stated that he was in possession of video
testimony in which a former colleague recounted everything that he had lived through before
seeking refuge in China.6 In addition, he argued that his story was identical to that of an
Ethiopian national who had been granted refugee status in Italy because she had received
threats from the Ethiopian authorities after opposing the acquisition of farmland by
multinationals. The complainant also stated that he had been living in Switzerland for almost
seven years and that he was requesting temporary admission on the grounds that he was well
integrated in the country.
2.19
On 27 September 2021, the State Secretariat for Migration dismissed the application
for re-examination. It found that the formal procedural requirements had not been met, since
the application was based on a newspaper article dated 6 July 2021 and contained no
statement of reasons relating to compliance with the 30-day time limit, established by the
Asylum Act, for the submission of such an application. The State Secretariat also noted that
the newspaper article was not decisive evidence supporting the complainant’s application,
since it had not been shown to be directly linked to the complainant’s specific, individual
situation. The State Secretariat reached the same conclusion with regard to the complainant’s
claims concerning the testimony of a former colleague and the situation of an Ethiopian
national. It also noted that, as a matter of principle, a decision could not be reviewed or
re-examined if the sole aim was to obtain a new legal assessment of facts already known or
a new evaluation of a settled legal matter. The complainant did not appeal against this
decision.
5 Issued by the Central Directorate of the Criminal Investigation Service on 25 March, 2 April and
10 April 2019.
6 The complainant did not produce the video testimony to support his application.
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
6
GE.25-19041
Complaint
3.1
The complainant asserts that his deportation to Togo would constitute a violation of
his rights under articles 3, 14 and 16 of the Convention because he would be at risk of
deprivation of liberty and inhuman and degrading treatment. He adds that Togolese prisons
do not meet international standards and that he would inevitably suffer ill-treatment there that
would cause him irreparable harm.
3.2
The complainant argues that the authorities of the State Party failed to take into
account his specific medical needs when they upheld their decision to return him to Togo.
He stresses that he has been hospitalized twice, in March 2016 and May 2021, for attempting
suicide and that he has suicidal thoughts on a daily basis. He believes that the Swiss
authorities failed to carry out a sufficient, individualized assessment of his case and his
personal experience as a victim of abduction, taking into account that his former partner and
his brother have been threatened and arrested by the Togolese authorities, that he himself
would be persecuted by the Togolese authorities if he were returned to Togo and that all the
people he worked with on the oil platform have either been arrested or fled. He considers that
he would not have access to adequate medical care in Togo.
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 29 November 2022, the State Party submitted its observations. It notes that the
complainant provided the Committee with a hospital discharge letter dated 16 June 2021 that
he had not submitted to the asylum authorities when applying for his case to be re-examined
on 13 September 2021. Consequently, the State Party considers that the complainant has not
exhausted all domestic remedies, since he could have used this evidence to support an
application for the re-examination of his case, bearing in mind that he filed an application of
that kind on 13 September 2021, in which there was no mention of the fact that he had been
hospitalized from 11 May to 4 June 2021.
4.2
With regard to the merits, the State Party reiterates the arguments presented by the
Swiss asylum authorities. It points out that, although there are outbreaks of violence and
further unrest cannot be ruled out, Togo is not in a situation of war, civil war or widespread
violence. It notes that the complainant does not claim to have been subjected to torture or
ill-treatment in the past.
4.3
The State Party notes that the domestic authorities found the complainant’s claims
that he was at risk of persecution by the Togolese authorities implausible. It is also surprising
that the complainant made no reference to his mental health problems in his application for
re-examination of 13 September 2021, despite having emphasized that aspect several times,
including in his appeal of 2 June 2016, his applications for re-examination of 20 May 2016
and 15 January 2018 and his asylum application of 8 March 2019. Furthermore, the fact that
the complainant was hospitalized in a psychiatric ward in May 2021 because of suicidal
thoughts linked to the prospect of being forcibly returned to his country of origin does not
cast doubt on the soundness of the decisions of the State Secretariat for Migration and the
Federal Administrative Court.
4.4
Lastly, if the complainant’s state of mental health were to render him unable to cope
with the stress and anxiety of his removal to Togo and even put him at risk of harming himself
or others, it would be up to the authorities responsible for enforcing the removal order to
arrange for him to be accompanied by a person with medical skills or any other person
capable of providing him with appropriate support, based on the outcomes of the medical
examination conducted prior to departure.
Complainant’s comments on the State Party’s observations
5.1
On 20 February 2023, the complainant submitted his comments. Regarding the State
Party’s claim that his complaint is inadmissible because he had not informed the asylum
authorities of his hospitalization from 11 May to 4 June 2021, the complainant argues that,
since he has had no legal training, non-compliance with procedural requirements of that kind
cannot be held against him, as the complainant is to be treated with a degree of leniency by
the authorities and courts, and the information in question should be examined by the
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
GE.25-19041
7
Committee. Otherwise, the Committee runs the risk of accepting requirements that constitute
excessive formalism.
5.2
With reference to the human rights situation in Togo, the complainant argues that the
torture and ill-treatment he suffered following his abduction and the reprisals taken against
his relatives to intimidate him are sufficient indications that he faces a personal risk of being
subjected to torture again if he is returned to Togo. According to the complainant, despite the
progress made by the Government of Togo, there is still a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant
or mass violations of human rights, relating to press freedom, corruption and torture in
particular, in the country.
5.3
The complainant states that the circumstances of his abduction suggest that it was
organized by a public official either because of his investigation into the fires at the major
markets in Lomé and Kara, or because of his work on the oil platform. The complainant was
tortured by the Togolese authorities in the recent past, as evidenced by medical certificates
and statements from relatives who have also been abducted. These events left their mark, as
the complainant has since been hospitalized twice for suicidal thoughts and depression.
5.4
The complainant argues that he was actively involved in political and humanitarian
activities as he was a member of the organization Nouveaux droits de l’homme. In addition,
he has been persecuted in connection with his former work as a petroleum engineer on a
drilling platform, because the Togolese authorities were displeased that one of his former
colleagues had revealed the existence of oil deposits. Since all the people who were working
on the drilling platform have had to flee or have been arrested, there is no doubt that the
complainant will be arrested on his return to Togo and that he will be tortured again, as he
was when he was abducted for 17 days.
5.5
The complainant notes that he has tried hard to prove his claims by providing
photographs of his former partner bed-bound after being attacked and a statement recounting
the attack, as well as photographs relating to the arrests of his brother and his former partner,
statements from former colleagues who had been threatened with abduction and torture, and
press articles about the oil affair and the threats made in that context. The complainant finds
it hard to understand what other evidence he could have presented in this situation and
considers that the Swiss authorities were far too quick to reject all the evidence that he
provided, without examining its veracity. He also disputes the Swiss authorities’ findings
regarding alleged inconsistencies in his account.
5.6
With regard to his state of health, the complainant claims that he would not be able to
afford treatment in Togo and that his family would not be able to help him cover the cost. In
Togo, there is no financial support from the State and medicines are a major financial burden
for patients’ families, who often resort to traditional methods for lack of means. Moreover,
medicines are not always available, as the supply is unreliable. Even if the situation were to
change, the progress made by Togo thus far in the area of psychiatric treatment is not
sufficient to ensure that he would receive adequate and appropriate care. He would therefore
face discrimination because he is poor. The situation as regards the provision of medical care
is even worse in prisons.
State Party’s additional observations
6.1
On 5 October 2023, the State Party noted that, contrary to his assertions, the
complainant would have access to essential mental healthcare in Togo. According to the case
law of the Federal Administrative Court, the medical facilities available are sufficient,
particularly in Lomé, the complainant’s home town, which has public psychiatric facilities
that could provide him with appropriate care if need be, including Sylvanus Olympio
University Hospital, Campus University Hospital and Barruet Clinic.7 In February 2017,
7 Federal Administrative Court, Judgment E-7281/2018, 19 December 2019, para. 7.2.3; Judgment
D-1601/2018, 3 May 2018, para. 8.5; and Judgment E-3520/2016, 7 August 2017, para. 7.3.3.
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
8
GE.25-19041
Lomé Mental Health Centre opened a centre for the diagnosis of psychiatric disorders that
has provided services to more than 5,000 patients.8
6.2
As regards the medication prescribed to the complainant, the State Party notes that,
according to the information available, quetiapine is available in Lomé.9 While the State
Party cannot guarantee that venlafaxine is available in Lomé, the Federal Administrative
Court has noted in a judgment that, according to the Consulate General of Switzerland in
Lomé, it is possible to obtain antidepressants there. 10 The complainant can also request
individual return assistance from the State Secretariat for Migration. In that context, if
appropriate, he could be granted a supply of medicines to take with him or even financial
support to help cover the cost of the necessary medical care in Togo for a limited time
period.11
6.3
Regarding the claim that the complainant could face discrimination and would have
no access to healthcare, the State Party notes that this is a mere assertion that is not based on
any concrete evidence and is completely unsubstantiated. Moreover, there is no evidence in
the case file to suggest that the complainant’s profile might prevent him from gaining access
to the necessary medical care, since, according to his statements, he is still young and has a
high school diploma, as well as professional experience as a petroleum engineer, a seller of
computer hardware and a dishwasher in a restaurant.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
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.
7.2
The Committee notes that the State Party argues that the complainant has not
exhausted all available domestic remedies because he did not apply for his case to be
re-examined to enable the competent national authorities to evaluate the hospital discharge
letter dated 16 June 2021 that he attached to his complaint to the Committee. The Committee
notes that the complainant invokes a lack of procedural knowledge. The Committee notes,
however, that the complainant had already mentioned his medical situation on several
occasions during the domestic proceedings. The Committee considers that the hospital
discharge letter in question does not constitute a new fact or evidence produced to support
new claims but rather additional evidence for his claims regarding his state of health. The
Committee considers that the complainants’ claims before the Committee are based on a set
of facts that were examined by the authorities of the State Party and that have been
sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.12 The Committee therefore finds
that, as far as the hospital discharge letter dated 16 June 2021 is concerned, it is not precluded,
under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, from considering the claim raised under article 3.
7.3
The Committee considers that the complainant has not shown that the facts, as
presented by him, raise separate issues under articles 14 and 16 of the Convention.13 In the
absence of further explanations, the Committee considers that that aspect of the
communication has not been sufficiently substantiated.
8 Swiss Refugee Council, “Togo : protection et soins psychiatriques pour les victimes de la traite des
êtres humains” (Togo: protection and psychiatric care for victims of trafficking in persons),
15 October 2018, p. 7.
9 Belgium, Aliens Litigation Council, Judgment No. 289 033, 16 May 2023, case X/1, para. 3.2.
10 Federal Administrative Court, Judgment E-4893/2019, E-4897/2019, 29 March 2022, para. 4.3.
11 Asylum Act, art. 93 (1) (d); and Asylum Ordinance No. 2 of 11 August 1999 on Financial Matters,
art. 75.
12 A.Sh. et al. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/63/D/717/2015), paras. 8.3 and 8.4.
13 N.A. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/79/D/1096/2021), para. 8.3; and Harun v. Switzerland
(CAT/C/65/D/758/2016), para. 8.7.
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
GE.25-19041
9
7.4
In the absence of any other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication, the
Committee proceeds to its consideration of the merits of the claims submitted by the
complainant under article 3 of the Convention.
Consideration of the merits
8.1
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.
8.2
In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the
complainant to Togo would constitute a violation of the State Party’s obligation under
article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return 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.
8.3
The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that
the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to
Togo. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations,
pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of
gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the
aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a foreseeable, personal,
present and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be
returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of
human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that
a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country;
additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be
personally at risk. Moreover, although past events may be of relevance, the principal question
before the Committee is whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned
to Togo.14
8.4
The Committee refers to its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the
risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.
Although the risk does not have to be shown to be highly probable, the burden of proof
generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or
she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk.15 The Committee also recalls that it gives
considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State Party concerned, while,
at the same time, it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under
article 22 (4) of the Convention, to make a free assessment of the information available to it,
taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.16
8.5
In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he would be in
danger of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention if returned to
Togo, as he would be at risk of detention and inhuman and degrading treatment on account
of his work on a drilling platform in Togo, particularly given the human rights situation in
Togo. The Committee also notes that the complainant does not claim to have suffered torture
or ill-treatment in the past.
8.6
The Committee notes the contradictions that the asylum authorities of the State Party
identified in the complainant’s account and their conclusion that the complainant had failed
to plausibly argue that he had attracted the attention of the Togolese authorities. The
Committee notes that the Swiss authorities duly examined the complainant’s claims and the
evidence produced to support his asylum application but found inconsistencies therein and
expressed doubts as to their credibility.
8.7
In particular, the Committee notes that the Swiss authorities did not cast doubt on the
credibility of the complainant’s claims relating to his work on the drilling platform. They
argued, however, that the complainant’s claim that this work had led to his being abducted
for two weeks and persecuted by the Togolese authorities was not credible. The Swiss
14 N.K. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/77/D/989/2020), para. 7.3.
15 See, inter alia, Dadar v. Canada (CAT/C/35/D/258/2004), para. 8.4; and A.R. v. Netherlands
(CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3.
16 General comment No. 4 (2017), paras. 11, 39 and 50.
CAT/C/83/D/1131/2022
10
GE.25-19041
authorities also expressed doubts as to whether the alleged abduction even took place and
whether the complainant’s account of the events leading up to his arrival in Switzerland was
accurate.
8.8
The Committee notes that even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant was
subjected to acts of torture and ill-treatment in the past (a claim that has not, in fact, been
made in the present case), the question is whether he remains, at present, at risk of torture in
Togo in the event of his forcible return there.17 The Committee also notes that, according to
its jurisprudence, the onus is generally on the complainant to make an arguable case.18 In the
present case, the Committee is of the view that the complainant has not provided credible
information suggesting that the Togolese authorities are currently interested in him. The
complainant also has not demonstrated that his family is currently being persecuted because
of his own past activities. In this regard, the Committee notes the Swiss authorities’
arguments for rejecting the evidence produced by the complainant, such as press articles,
summonses and photographs.
8.9
With respect to the complainant’s argument relating to the human rights situation in
Togo, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the
complainant’s country of origin is not in itself sufficient for it to conclude that the
complainant is personally at risk of being tortured there. The Committee notes that the
complainant had ample opportunity to provide the State Secretariat for Migration and the
Federal Administrative Court with supporting evidence and more information about his
claims, as he submitted three asylum applications and three applications for re-examination.
However, it cannot be concluded on the basis of the evidence provided that the complainant
would personally be at risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment if he returned to
Togo.
9.
On the basis of the above, and in the light of the material before it, the Committee
considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to enable it to conclude
that his deportation to his country of origin would expose him to a foreseeable, personal,
present and real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention.
10.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the
return of the complainant to Togo would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention
by the State Party.
17 N.K. v. Switzerland, para. 7.10.
18 See, for example, N.B-M. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/47/D/347/2008), para. 9.9; C.A.R.M. et al. v.
Canada (CAT/C/38/D/298/2006), para. 8.10; and M.A.K. v. Germany (CAT/C/32/D/214/2002),
para.13.5.