CAT/C/63/D/703/2015

some wearing balaclavas, had been at I.U.K.’s house early in the morning looking for him.
They had searched the house for approximately two hours, scaring the complainants’
children and behaving inappropriately towards R.R.K. In particular, they had verbally
humiliated her, slapped her bottom and touched her breasts. The men had left when the
complainants’ neighbours had come over because of the noise and had shouted at them to
leave R.R.K. alone. I.U.K. had then decided to hide with his brother-in-law and R.R.K.’s
sister where he stayed until his family’s departure from the Russian Federation on 23
November 2013. I.U.K. has subsequently been informed by his brother that the authorities
came to I.U.K.’s house to ask for him and arrested his other brother. I.U.K. does not know
for how long his brother was under arrest but, apparently, he was also beaten during his
interrogation. I.U.K. was informed by his brother that summonses had been received in
I.U.K.’s name, while R.R.K. was informed by her mother that the authorities had contacted
I.U.K.’s family.
2.6
The complainants entered Denmark on 26 November 2013 without valid travel
documents and applied for asylum the same day. As his grounds for asylum, I.U.K. has
referred to his fear of being killed by the authorities or the insurgents in case of his return to
Dagestan. R.R.K. has referred to her spouse’s grounds for asylum. On 8 January 2014, the
Danish Immigration Service conducted the asylum screening interviews of I.U.K. and
R.R.K. Their asylum interviews were conducted by the Immigration Service on 2 June
2014. I.U.K. gave his consent to undergo an examination for signs of torture, should the
Immigration Service deem it necessary.
2.7
On 30 June 2014, the Immigration Service refused asylum to the complainants. On
21 October 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal by the Immigration
Service of the complainants’ asylum application. On 24 October 2014, the complainants
requested the Board to reopen the asylum proceedings and to extend the time limit for their
departure from Denmark. As a reason for their request, the complainants referred, inter alia,
to the fact that they had requested the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group to
conduct an examination of I.U.K. for signs of torture. By letter of 22 April 2015, the
complainants transmitted to the Board a report on the examination of I.U.K. for signs of
torture conducted by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group. On 27 August 2015,
the Board refused to reopen the complainants’ asylum proceedings.
2.8
Since, according to the Danish Aliens Act, the decision of the Board cannot be
appealed before the Danish courts, the complainants submit that they have exhausted all
available and effective domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The complainants submit that Denmark would breach its obligations under article 3
of the Convention by returning them to the Russian Federation. They argue, in particular,
that I.U.K. risks being detained and subjected to torture by the authorities or the insurgents
in case of his return to Dagestan. In support of their claim, the complainants state that I.U.K.
was detained and subjected to torture by police in Dagestan after having been threatened by
insurgents into helping buy food and medication for them. They add that the authorities
suspected I.U.K. of collaborating with the insurgents and that, therefore, he was unable to
seek the authorities’ protection against the insurgents.
3.2
The complainants submit that the abuse against I.U.K. was described in detail on
several occasions during the proceedings and that the information in this respect was not
taken into account by the Board in its assessment of the matter. They specifically argue that
the Immigration Service and the Board should have initiated I.U.K.’s examination for signs
of torture. In this respect, the complainants refer to a report made by the Amnesty
International Danish Medical Group in April 2015 on I.U.K’s examination for signs of
torture and observe that, irrespective of the findings of the report, the Board decided to
refuse the complainants’ request for reopening of the asylum proceedings.
3.3
The complainants also submit that the Board based its decision on the view that the
complainants’ statements were mutually inconsistent. However, according to the
complainants, it is common practice in northern Caucasus for a female spouse not to know
much about the activities of her male spouse. Prior to their arrival in Denmark, I.U.K. had

3

Select target paragraph3