The author of the communication is A, an Afghan national born on 7 February 1987
currently residing in Denmark. He is subject to deportation, following the rejection of his
application for refugee status in Denmark. He asserts that by removing him to Afghanistan
the State party would violate his rights under articles 6, 7, 13 and 14 of the Covenant. The
first Optional Protocol to the Covenant entered into force for Denmark on 23 March 1976.
The author is represented by counsel.
On 17 March 2014, pursuant to rules 92 and 97 of its rules of procedure, the
Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, requested the State party to refrain from removing the author to Afghanistan
while the communication was under consideration by the Committee. On 4 November
2014, the Committee granted the State party’s request to lift interim measures. The author
remains in Denmark.
Facts as presented by the author
The author’s father purchased property from a man named Q. Shortly after that
transaction, Q died of illness. Thereafter, three of Q’s relatives, including a man named S,
approached the author’s father in order to claim the property. A fight ensued between the
author’s family and Q’s relatives. During the fight, the author’s brother killed S. The author
and his father and brother fled to stay with a family friend. In order to resolve the land
dispute, they decided to let Q’s brothers keep the property. In addition, they decided to give
one of their family’s girls to Q’s brothers. However, when they were on their way to meet
with Q’s family to discuss this resolution, they came across Q’s brothers, who shot at them
and killed the author’s father and brother.
Fearing that Q’s brothers would kill him to prevent him from testifying against them
and from reclaiming the property, the author fled Afghanistan. His wife remains in
Afghanistan; the couple does not have children.
The author has exhausted domestic remedies in Denmark. His appeal of the negative
asylum decision was denied by the Refugee Appeals Board on 13 January 2014. This
decision is final and may not be appealed before the Danish courts. The author’s request to
reopen asylum proceedings was denied on 17 March 2014.
The complaint
The author submits that the State party would violate his rights under articles 6, 7
and 14 of the Covenant by forcibly removing him to Afghanistan, where he fears being
killed by Q’s brothers, who killed the author’s father and brother over a land dispute.
Neither the Danish Immigration Service nor the Refugee Appeals Board properly
investigated the serious risk of harm or death that the author would face in Afghanistan. 1
In violation of article 14 of the Covenant, the State party planned to deport the
author on the same date on which the Refugee Appeals Board issued its negative decision,
before he could submit a communication before the Committee. Preparations for his
removal were not suspended when he filed a request to reopen asylum proceedings.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
In its observations dated 17 September 2014, the State party considers that the
Refugee Appeals Board is an independent, quasi-judicial body. The Board is considered as



The author cites UNHCR, UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection
Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan (6 August 2013), p. 68.

Select target paragraph3