CEDAW/C/68/D/79/2014
Complaint
3.1 The author claims that her deportation to Somalia would constitute a violation
of her rights under articles 3, 5 and 16 (b) of the Convention. Given the general
conditions prevailing in Somalia, she also alleges a violation of article 3 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
(European Convention on Human Rights) if she were to be removed to that country.
3.2 The author alleges that, if returned to Somalia, she would be forced to marry an
Al-Shabaab member and would not have the same right to choose a spouse and to
enter into a marriage with her full consent as guaranteed by article 16 (b) of the
Convention. In addition, she fears that she would be killed or tortured by A.H. or
other members of Al-Shabaab because she did not want to marry him. She further
claims that, were she to be deported, the State party would violate articles 3 and 5 of
the Convention as she would not be guaranteed the exercise of her human rights and
fundamental freedoms on the basis of equality with men.
3.3 The author also contests the fact that the decision of the Refugee Ap peals Board
is mainly based on her credibility 1 and contends that the Board did not investigate the
risk that she would face if she were to be returned.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 On 3 June 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and the merits of the communication.
4.2 The State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case
for the purpose of rendering her communication admissible. It adds that the Refugee
Appeals Board was unable to accept any part of the author ’s statements as factual,
while also recalling inconsistencies in her statements.
4.3 The State party provides a comprehensive description of the organization,
composition, duties, prerogatives and jurisdiction of the Refugee Appeals Board and
the guarantees for asylum seekers, including legal representation, the presence of an
interpreter and the possibility for an asylum seeker to make a statement on appeal. It
also notes that the Board has a comprehensive collection of general background
material on the situation in the countries from which Denmark receives asylum
seekers, which is updated and supplemented on a continuous basis from various
recognized sources, all of which it takes into consideration when assessing cases.
4.4 Recalling the Committee’s decision in M.N.N. v. Denmark, 2 the State party
indicates that the Convention has extraterritorial effect only when it is foreseeable
that serious gender-based violence would occur upon the author ’s return. It therefore
submits that the risk of such violence must be real, personal and foreseeable. In this
connection, the State party asserts that the author has failed to establish a prima facie
case for the purposes of rendering her communication admissible under article
4 (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol on the grounds that she has not substantiated the
__________________
1
2
17-21664
With respect to whether the author told A.H. that she would marry him before he allowed her to
go back to her parents’ house on 12 February 2014; whether the author told the truth, in that she
provided an evasive reply when asked whether her aunt had money to pay for the author’s
departure from Somalia only three days after the author’s last encounter with A.H.; and why the
author did not escape earlier, given that A.H. had contacted her father several times and made
threats.
CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011.
3/8