The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
16 October 1986, the following members being present:

                   MM C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                      J.A. FROWEIN
                      G. JÖRUNDSSON
                      S. TRECHSEL
                      B. KIERNAN
                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                      A. WEITZEL
                      J.C. SOYER
                      H.G. SCHERMERS
                      H. DANELIUS
                      G. BATLINER
                      H. VANDENBERGHE
                  Mrs G.H. THUNE
                  Sir Basil HALL
                   Mr F. MARTINEZ

          Mr H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 29 May 1985 by
A.A. against the United Kingdom and registered on 22 April 1986 under
file No. 12109/86;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:


The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan, born in 1957, who at the time
of lodging his application was detained in H.M. Prison Channing Wood,
Devon, awaiting his deportation from the United Kingdom.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows:

The applicant claims to have been an active member of the main
opposition political party in Pakistan, the Pakistan People's Party
(the P.P.P.).  In 1977 he led a peaceful demonstration of some three
hundred people from his home town to Lahore, where arrests were made
by the police and the military forces.  The applicant was arrested,
but managed to escape and live in hiding until 1982, working
underground for the P.P.P.  In 1982 he states that he was arrested and
tortured along with two of his friends.  In order to save his own life
and that of his friends he agreed to participate in a drug smuggling
incident intended to embarrass a leading member of the P.P.P. exiled
in the United Kingdom.  Under surveillance by the Pakistani secret
police, he made contact with this person during a visit to the United
Kingdom in September 1982.  He then agreed with Pakistani authorities
to return to the United Kingdom on 14 November 1982 carrying half a
kilo of heroin, being met at Heathrow Airport, London, by the
opposition figure in question.  However the applicant was able to
advise that person by telephone, during a stop-over at Frankfurt
Airport, not to meet him at Heathrow.  The applicant decided to try to
pass British customs with the drugs.  He was, nevertheless, caught.

On 27 March 1983 the applicant was convicted of drug offences by the
Aylesbury Crown Court and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, with
a recommendation for deportation.  He was refused leave to appeal out
of time on 4 October 1984 (it is not clear whether he appealed against
the recommendation to deport).  A deportation order was issued by the
Home Secretary on 27 March 1986.  No appeal was possible against the

The applicant applied for political asylum on the basis that he feared
persecution, torture and death if returned to Pakistan.  He alleged
that his friends had been tortured and killed when the Pakistan
authorities had heard of his conviction and of his denunciation of the
authorities' involvement in the drug smuggling incident.  He claims to
have received a letter from three policemen involved in this torture
and killing, who had blackmailed him into smuggling the drugs,
offering their testimony on his behalf, if the United Kingdom would
also grant them political asylum.  (This letter is an unauthenticated
English translation, typed and unsigned.)

The Home Secretary refused the applicant asylum on 4 March 1986
because he was not convinced that the applicant's fears of persecution
were well-founded.  The Government's reasons for this conclusion are
as follows (information provided on 23 July 1986):

"The applicant's case for asylum rests on the claim that his drug
smuggling activities were undertaken under pressure from the Pakistani
authorities to discredit an opponent of the military regime there.  He
alleges that as a supporter of the Pakistan People's Party (P.P.P.) he
was detained and tortured by the authorities before being persuaded to
smuggle drugs into the United Kingdom.  He was arrested at Heathrow
with the drugs in his possession.  (The applicant) originally advanced
these claims as a defence to the charges during his trial.  They were
not accepted by the jury which convicted him.  The applicant has been
interviewed in connection with his asylum application and given every
opportunity to present his arguments.  They have been carefully
considered, but the conclusion has been reached that he has not
established that he has ground to fear persecution if returned to

In so far as the applicant suggests that he is at risk in Pakistan by
virtue merely of his membership of the P.P.P., the Government does not
accept that.  Martial law was lifted in Pakistan on 1 January and over
the last twelve months there has been a general easing of the
restrictions on political activity. The P.P.P. is no longer banned and
in the case of a few districts, notably Azad Kashmir, it never was
proscribed.  The P.P.P. has grown in strength since January.  Its
leaders were released from detention and house arrest last year and
Miss Bhutto, the party leader, returned recently with a large group of
supporters.  Her progress through Pakistan has been a great success
and it is understood that there have been no attempts to restrict her
activities in any way.  The P.P.P. has attracted considerable public
support and can now be regarded as the major opposition party.  It
follows that the Government do not regard mere membership of the
P.P.P. as a sufficient ground for granting asylum."

The applicant claims that even though martial law has been lifted
there are outstanding martial law charges against him and that, if
returned to Pakistan, he risks barbaric punishment, or hanging.
Moreover he states that the British authorities have failed to allow
him to substantiate his claims by releasing him from prison for a few
weeks to allow him to acquire documentary proof or by allowing the
three aforementioned Pakistani police witnesses to enter the United
Kingdom to testify on his behalf.  Finally he points out that since
August 1986 the situation of the political opposition in Pakistan has
seriously deteriorated.

The applicant's appeal against destination was refused on
30 July 1986, as he was unable to show that any other country would
allow him entry.  He was due to be deported on 8 September 1986.


The applicant complains that his deportation from the United Kingdom
back to Pakistan constitutes a breach of Article 3 (art. 3) of the
Convention because he risks persecution, torture and death in that


The applicant has complained that his deportation from the United
Kingdom back to Pakistan constitutes a breach of Article 3 (art. 3)
of the Convention, because he allegedly risks persecution, torture and
death in that country.

Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention provides as follows:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment."

The Commission has constantly held that, although the Convention does
not guarantee rights, as such, to political asylum or freedom from
deportation or expulsion, a deportation may nevertheless raise issues
under Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention in exceptional
circumstances, namely where there are serious grounds to fear that in
the State of destination the person concerned will be subjected to
treatment contrary to this provision (see, e.g. No. 7465/76,
Dec. 19.9.76, D.R. 7, p. 153).

In the present case the Commission notes the applicant's claim to have
been an active member of the Pakistan People's Party, the main
political oppostion party in Pakistan, and that he was blackmailed
into drug smuggling by Pakistani Government agents to save his life
and that of his friends.  However, it appears that this latter claim
was not accepted by the British jury which convicted him of drug
smuggling and the applicant has not submitted any objective or
significant evidence which might substantiate his claim concerning his
political activities or political persecution.  Moreover, despite
recent unrest, the situation of the political opposition in Pakistan
at the moment does not appear to disclose an immediate and serious
risk for the applicant of ill-treatment, inconsistent with Article 3
(art. 3) of the Convention, as a purported member of that opposition.

In these circumstances the Commission finds unsubstantiated the
applicant's claim that he risks treatment contrary to Article 3
(art. 3) of the Convention if returned to Pakistan.  The application
is, accordingly, manifestly ill-founded, within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission

      (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (C.A. NØRGAARD)