CRC/C/77/D/3/2016 advance unedited version

The author of the communication is I. A. M., a Somali national originating from the
Puntland State of Somalia and born in 1990. She is acting on behalf of her daughter, K. Y.
M., born in Denmark on 5 January 2016. The author and her daughter are subject to a
deportation order to the Puntland State of Somalia. She claims that her daughter’s deportation
would violate her rights under articles 1, 2, 3 and 19 of the Convention. She is represented
by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Denmark on 7 January 2016.
Based on article 6 of the Optional Protocol, on 16 February 2016 the Working Group
on Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested that the State party refrain
from returning the author and her daughter to their country of origin while their case was
under consideration by the Committee. On 18 February 2017, the State party suspended the
execution of the deportation order against the author and her daughter. On 16 August 2017,
the State party requested that interim measures be lifted (see para. 4.1 below). On 16 January
2017, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, decided
to deny the request to lift interim measures.
On 2 March 2017, the State party requested that the communication be discontinued
(see para. 6 below). On 9 June 2017, the Working Group on Communications, acting on
behalf of the Committee, decided not to discontinue the consideration of the communication.
The facts as presented by the author
The author entered Denmark on 25 September 2014 without valid travel documents
and applied for asylum four days later together with her husband.1 On 31 March 2015, the
Danish Immigration Service (DIS) decided that the author’s husband was to be transferred to
Sweden under the Dublin III Regulation.2 This decision was upheld on 22 April 2015 by the
Danish Refugee Appeals Board (RAB). On 21 May 2015, the husband was transferred to
On 5 October 2015, when the author was six months pregnant, the DIS rejected her
asylum application. The author appealed this decision with the RAB, arguing a fear of being
killed by her family because of her secret marriage against the family’s will in 2007,3 and the
risk that her daughter would be subjected to female genital mutilation if returned to the
Puntland State of Somalia.
On 2 February 2016, the RAB rejected the author’s appeal and ordered her deportation
to Somalia, without indicating the specific region. The Board considered that the author’s
statements were inconsistent and lacked credibility, in particular with regard to her father’s
reaction when he had learned about her secret marriage back in 2007,4 and the fact that she
had stayed in the Puntland State of Somalia until 2014 despite her husband’s departure in
2007. The RAB also noted that, between 2007 and 2014, the author had lived in her home
without experiencing any further retaliation. With regard to the risk that the author’s daughter
would be forcefully subjected to female genital mutilation, the RAB relied on the DIS report






The author has not specified how or when her husband, who had purportedly been residing in Sweden
since 2007, joined her and arrived in Denmark.
European Union Regulation No. 604/2013 (“Dublin III Regulation”) provides a mechanism for
determining which country is responsible for examining an application for international protection that
has been lodged in one of the member states by a third country national or a stateless person.
According to the RAB decision dated 2 February 2016, the author married in 2007 in secret and against
her family’s will to a man of a lower clan.
According to the RAB decision dated 2 February 2016, the author had initially stated before the DIS
that when her father found out about the marriage, he beat her with belts all night long and threatened
to kill her husband. Before the RAB, she stated that she had been held in her room for a month, tied to
her bed, and that she was beaten with metal on her feet.

Select target paragraph3