(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The applicants, Y., born in [.. .] 1958, hiswife, M., born in[. . .] 1961 ; and their two children, X. and Z., born respectively in [ . . .] 1980 and [..~] 1982, are Zairean nationals and reside in Geneva . . . ' Before the Commission, they are represented by Mr. Jacques Busset of thè Geneva Bar. . 290 The applicant Y. arrivedin Switzerland on 5 April 1983, and at once requested asylum. In support of his application, he adduced the following facts . In Zaire, he had been a customs officer . At tlre request of his superior, F:.L., and in collusion with his other colleagues, he had on several occasions supplemented his wages by helping Europeandiamond smugglers to pass through custonis .•Caught in the act, he was arrested on . 20 November 1982 with thirteen other people, including his sutxrior, and placed in detention, first in tlte CNBI (National Research and Pnvestigation Centre) and later in the "Second O .U.A. Centre" . While in detention, he suffered se2ious malnutrition, daily physical ill-treatmew and the psychological attxiety caused by the sumrnary execution and disappearance of several fellow-prisoners, and he was ne.ver fonnally charged or brought before a jud.ge. Fearing fcr his life, he succeeded in escaping on 22 February 1983 with the help of Major M ., a senior officer in the Zairean aimy, who had been bribed by his father-in-law . He was given a passport in his own ninre, as well as .aplatie ticket and some money . He left for Rome, arriv'nag at Fiumicino Airport on 23 February 1983 . Having lived as a vagrant in Italy, he eventually' found himself destimr.e. A stran„er's generosity enabled h;m to purchase a train ticket to Geneva, where he arrived on 5 April 1983 . He was olficially registered as an asylumseeker a few days after applyin g He was joined on 27 February 1984 by his wif ., who had been visited on several occasions by the Zairean police after his disappeara .nee, and by his two children, who are also applicants before the Commission. These persons were als o ' regiscered officially as asylum .seekers .Investigationproceedingsregardingtheserequestsforasylum were opened, in the course of which the first applicant was interviewed twice, first by the Cantonal authority on 28 April 1983 and then by the Federal authority on 8 October 1 .984. At these irkterviews, the first applicant was unable to prodnce proof o1' his statements . Fte also admitted that-he had never been politically aclive in Zaire and had never belonged to apolitical organisation, but stated that the situation which he had described meant that his life would be in danger if he returned to Zaire . His wife stated thatshe had conie to join her husband in Switzerland on 24 Febmary 1584 . She said that she had fled Zaire, *Nhere she had alr , radÿ been threatencd and maltreated by the police so that stie would disclose her husband's ~ whereabouts . On 21 March 1985, the Federal Police Office rejected the requests fcr asylum, pointing out the first applicant did not satisfy the requireinents prescribed b y 291 Section 3 of the Asylum Act in respect of refugee status, and particularly that his conviction for an ordinary offence in his own country would be based on legitimate considerations, such as the maintenance of public order . Moreover, there were still considerable doubts concerning the events of which he had allegedly been the victim, and the circumstances and date of his arrival i nEurope . His wife's request could not be granted under the Asylum Act, Section 8 of which recognised the principle of family unity only if the husband was himself accorded political refugee status . The first applicant's appeal against this decision was dismissed on 11 March . 1986 by the Federal Justice and Police Department, which ordered his and his family's expulsion from Switzerland for the reasons given by the Federal Police Office. It rejected the applicant's story as unconvincing, and referred in particular to contradictions in his statements to the Cantonal and Federal authôrities, and to unexplained false entries in his passport. Having been ordered to leave Switzerland by 5 May 1986, on pain of being • forcibly expelled to Zaire, the applicants applied to the Commission . The first applicant complained that repatriation to Zaire would expose both him and his family to inhuman treatment, and made the following points : a) As the joint perpetrator of a simple disciplinary offence, he had been handed over to the State security services and held for several months, without being given the right either to proper investigative proceedings or to being formally charged . b) Although he had not actively opposed the incumbent regime, he had been regarded and treated as a rebel, obviously because he originally came from a• province in Southern Zaire . c) He had witnessed barbarous acts by State officials, including the summary ; execution of his superior and the disappearance of two fellow-prisoners, who might ; well have suffered the same fate . d) He had himself been treated with extreme brutality by State officials, in a manner which had shown complete contempt for human rights . e) The Zairean authorities had not informed his family of his auest or place of detention, and this suggested that nothing more or less than physical elimination was the fate ultimately intended for him . f) Finally, diamond smuggling was at the root of the treatment meted out to him, and the State of Zaire is merciless in punishing citizens who attempt to misappro-, priate diamonds . 292 THE LA'IN (Extract) The applicants allege that ttieir expnlsion to Zaire would onstitute treatment incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention . Specifically, the first applicant alleges that this would expose him to arbitl-ary imprisonment, tonure and even death. By expelling him to Zaire, Switzerland would thus be in violation of Article 3 . 7'his Article states that : ° No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhnman or deg ;rading treatment or punishment . " 7'he Government contest the applicants' arguments on both factual and legal groun<Is . 7'he Commission recall that it has consistently ruled that the Convention does not guarantee the right of residence or asylum in a State of which one is nota national (cf., for example, No. 1802/62, Dec. 26.3 .63, Yearbook 6, pp . 463, 479). Expulsion is not, in itself, one of the sabjects covered by the Convention (No . ?256/75, Dec. 10. 12.76, D .R. 8 p. 161) . 7'his means that expulsion is not, in itself, contrary to the Convention . In exceptional circumstances, however, the expulsion of an alien may raise a problem under Article 3 of the Convention, when there are serious reasons for believing that the person in question may be exposed to treatment prohibited by that i provision in the country to which he is expelled (No . 8:581/79, Dec. 6.3 .80, D.R. 129 pp . 48, 62) . I'he Commission must therefore consider whether lhere are serious reasons to believe that the first applicant would be e)cposed to inhuman or degrading treatment, or even torture, on his remrn, and whether the Swiss Government would be responsible for a violation of Article 3 by expelling the applieaats to Zaire in these eircumstance> . The parties appear to agree that the first applicant would have reasoa to fear ill-tree.tme,nt or torture on his return if his version of ttre facts were accuirate . In this case, however, the applicaint's statements are not supportec, by any convincing evidence. On ttte eontrary, the evidence collected in the course of the proceedings before the Commission has raised numerous doubts concerning the accuracy of his version of events . For example, the first applicant states that he committed various offences whde serving as a customs officer at N'Dili Airport at Kinshasa under a certain K .L. Having made enquiries through the Swiss Embassy in Zaire, the Swiss authorities have informed the Commission that infotmation obtained on the spot indicates that neither the applicant nor K.L. were ever employed by the customs service . 293 Moreover, the fact that the date stamped on the applicant's passport on his arrival in Italy has been altered casts doubt on his account of the circumstances of his coming to Europe . This doubt is strengthened by the presence of a Belgian seal beneath the photograph in the applicant's passport, although he claims that he had never left his own country before coming to Switzerland via Italy . Having examined all the evidence and arguments put to it, the Commission considers that the applicants have not shown thatthere are reasons to believe that the first applicant might, if expelled to his own country, be exposed to treatment prohibited by Article 3, and that the other applicants might, directly or indirectly, have to suffer the consequences of this . In these circumstances, the application is, on this point, manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 294