CCPR/C/125/D/2494/2014
2.4
On 30 August 2007, the Refugee Appeals Board found no reason to change its
assessment of 26 January 1999.3 New evidence produced by the author in the form of a
summons dated 24 August 2005, according to which the author’s spouse had been
summoned to appear in court in connection with a case of complicity in forgery, could not
be interpreted as proof that the Iranian authorities were persecuting the author. 4
Participating in a television programme in which his name and nationality appeared could
not justify the granting of asylum in Denmark. 5 The assumption that the Iranian authorities
must be aware that the author was applying for asylum in Denmark could not independently
justify residence.6 The Board also noted that the author was not involved in any political
party. It therefore decided that he must leave the country or he would be forcibly deported.
The authorities, however, were not able to deport him. 7
2.5
On 23 November 2012, the author was baptized and was issued with a certificate of
baptism on 6 June 2013. On 25 July 2014, he was informed that his deportation was
scheduled for 30 July 2014. On 27 May 2014, the author sought to reopen his asylum case
based on his conversion to Christianity.
2.6
On 28 July 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen his case. The Board
considered that the certificate of baptism failed to render it probable that the author’s
conversion into Christianity was authentic. On 30 July 2014, the author was forcibly
returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The complaint
3.1
In his initial submission, the author argues that if returned to the Islamic Republic of
Iran, he would risk persecution on account of his conversion to Christianity – against sharia
law – in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Being away from the Islamic
Republic of Iran for 15 years, the Iranian authorities will ask him questions about his stay in
Europe and his reasons for having fled the country. The author’s wife cannot return to the
Islamic Republic of Iran because she is a refugee in Denmark, with a residence permit,
hence the couple will be separated forever if the author is deported.
3.2
The author invokes a violation of article 14 of the Covenant for having had access
only to an administrative procedure, and not to the courts. In its response to the concluding
observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the State party
justified the denial of access to the courts on the grounds that the Refugee Appeals Board
was a court-like organ. 8 But the Committee expressed concern “that decisions by the
Refugee Board on asylum requests are final and may not be appealed before a court”, and
recommended that “asylum-seekers be granted the right to appeal against the Refugee
Board’s decisions”.9
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
The author continued to claim that he was wanted by the Iranian authorities for smuggling of weapons
to the Iranian embassy in Damascus and added the fact that he had appeared on television in relation
to the hunger strike of asylum seekers.
The Refugee Appeals Board further observed that the author had declared that his wife had been
issued with a false passport. Against that background, the Board found no reason to grant the author’s
request for adjourning the case pending a procedure in which the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would
have the authenticity of the summons verified and investigate whether a case was pending against the
author.
The Board emphasized that the television programme dealt with the conditions of asylum seekers who
had stayed for a long time in Denmark and been refused asylum and that the author had merely talked
about his own health conditions and the length of his stay in Denmark. The author had not talked
about conditions in the Islamic Republic of Iran and had not levelled any criticism at the Iranian
authorities.
The Board referred to the existing background information, including the “Country of origin
information” published by the British Home Office on 4 May 2007, according to which asylum
seekers who are refused asylum do not face significant problems upon their return, except in the case
of high-profile individuals.
No further details are provided.
CERD/C/DEN/CO/17/Add.1, para. 12.
CERD/C/DEN/CO/17, para. 13.
3