CCPR/C/125/D/2672/2015
1.2
On 9 November 2015, the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, acting on behalf of the Committee, decided not to issue a request for interim
measures under rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure.
Factual background
2.1
The author fled the Syrian Arab Republic in 2012, and was registered in the
European Asylum Dactyloscopy Database (EURODAC) on 25 October 2012, in Italy, and
on 7 December 2012, in Germany. The author claims that he was deported from Germany
to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation1 on an unspecified date. In Italy, he received no
assistance and was forced to live in the streets, and exposed to violence and crime.
2.2
As a result of the deficient living conditions in Italy, the author returned to the
Syrian Arab Republic in May 2013, where he stayed at the house of a doctor until 2014. In
June 2014, the author fled the Syrian Arab Republic again because he wanted to avoid
being called recruited by the Syrian army or by rebel movements.
2.3
On 17 June 2014, the author arrived in Denmark, where his paternal aunt lives, and
applied for asylum two days later. By letter of 28 July 2014, the Italian authorities informed
the Danish Immigration Service that the author had been granted refugee status in Italy. The
author claims that he was not informed of that decision. The author provides a copy of a
medical certificate from the Daer Sem Surgical Hospital referring to his hospitalization
from 8 to 12 September 2013. He claims to have no other proof or supporting document of
his interim residence in the Syrian Arab Republic because he was hiding from State
authorities.
2.4
On 14 January 2015, in Denmark, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the author’s
asylum application, based on paragraph 7, subsection 3 of the Aliens Act, according to
which a residence permit may be denied if the foreigner has already gained protection in
another country or if the foreigner already has a close connection to another country where
the foreigner is assumed to be able to gain protection. That provision gives the Government
of Denmark the power to send people like the author to Italy, without any humanitarian
consideration. Like the Immigration Service, the Board found that, in Italy, the author
would be protected from refoulement and that he would receive protection and would have
access to basic social and economic rights. Lastly, the Board found the author’s allegation
regarding his time in the Syrian Arab Republic in 2013 and 2014 unreliable and constructed
especially for the occasion.
2.5
The author claims to have exhausted domestic remedies because the Refugee
Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration Services to reject his asylum
application in Denmark.
The complaint
3.
The author claims that his deportation to Italy would put him at risk of being
subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, given the
social and economic conditions for “Dublin” returnees in Italy. He claims that these
conditions are of such nature to amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The poor
reception conditions and integration prospects in Italy apply even to people with recognized
refugee status. 2 He argues that he has explained the systemic deficiencies of the Italian
refugee system that affects “Dublin” returnees, and that the Refugee Appeals Board must
consider whether the Italian authorities offer guarantees of protection.
1
2
2
Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013
establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining
an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country
national or a stateless person.
The author cites the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in Tarakhel v. Switzerland
(application No. 29217/12), 4 November 2014, para. 60.