CEDAW/C/71/D/101/2016
1.1 The author is S.A.O., a Somali national born in 1989. She sought asylum in
Denmark in 2014, but her application was rejected and she risks deportation to
Somalia. She claims that, if Denmark proceeds with her deportation, it would be in
violation of articles 2 (d), 12, 15 and 16 of the Convention, read tog ether with the
principle of non-refoulement as set out in the Committee’s general recommendation
No. 32 (2014) on the gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality
and statelessness of women. The Convention and the Optional Protocol thereto
entered into force for the State party on 21 May 1983 and 22 December 2000,
respectively. The author is represented by counsel.
1.2 In her initial submission of 7 December 2015, the author asked the Committee
to request Denmark to halt her deportation pending the examination of her case. On
22 February 2016, when registering the communication, the Committee invited the
State party to do so. On 11 August 2016, the State party informed the Committee that,
on 22 February 2016, the Danish Refugee Appeals Board had suspended the time limit
for the author’s deportation.
Facts as submitted by the author
2.1 After her father died in 2005, the author went to live with h er uncle’s family in
Baardheere, Gedo region, in Somalia. She has a younger sister, but has not contacted
her since her arrival in Denmark. Her uncle’s family beat her, spoke rudely to her and
treated her as a slave. She was in love with S., whom she was meet ing at his shop.
She wished to marry him, but her uncle’s family opposed this and arranged for her
marriage to an older man, F. She did not know him, but notes that he belonged to a
clan in Baardheere and was her uncle’s wife’s brother.
2.2 On the day of the wedding, the author was not allowed to attend the ceremony
at the mosque. When she learned that the ceremony was over, she visited S. However,
her uncle and his wife arrived and beat her. They threatened to stone her, as she was
already a married woman and therefore could not have a friend. The author claims
that no police officers were present and that there was only an Al -Shabaab force in
the area, but she did not complain to them as that would have created problems.
2.3 The author was locked in a room in the family home for two days. Subsequently,
her husband arrived. The author’s uncle’s wife threatened her, saying that if she did
not accept F. as her husband, she would report her to Al-Shabaab. F. struck the author
with a stick. The author said that, in order to be allowed to leave the house, she agreed
to being married. She was released but was watched closely. The family began
preparations for a celebration of the wedding the next day. The house was decorated
and an animal was readied for slaughter. S. sent a friend, who asked the author to
stand ready as S. would send her a car later in the evening to help her to escape.
2.4 The author’s trip was paid for by S., his mother and the author ’s aunt. S. also
needed to escape, out of fear, but his trip was delayed as he had to await the
reimbursement of some money.
2.5 The author claims that if she had not escaped immediately she would have been
detained by her uncle. She travelled first to Ethiopia, where she was informed by S. ’s
mother that S. had been arrested on the basis of accusations made by her uncle.
2.6 The author explains that she asked the Danish Refugee Appeals Board to take
her need for protection into consideration from the perspective of the Convention.
According to her, the Board failed to take the Convention into consideration at all,
even though the case related to a single woman from one of the most dangerous
countries for women. The author also belongs to the minority Ashraf clan, which
complicates her case further. It was important for the Board to consider whether she
would be at risk of gender-specific violence in the event of her forcible return. The
2/12
18-20335