CCPR/C/112/D/2341/2014
could be the subject of an appeal to the competent city or district court, whose judgement
could be appealed at the High Court and, ultimately, at the Supreme Court. The domestic
courts have full jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the Board’s decision and are
empowered to quash the decision should they find that it was unlawful.
4.3
The State party further submits that the author has not asked a court to rule a
temporary injunction against his removal from Norway. According to chapters 32 and 34 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, a person whose expulsion had been ordered by the
immigration authorities can apply to a court for an interlocutory injunction to stay the
implementation of the expulsion order.
4.4
The State party further submits that the author has not applied for free legal aid,
under the provisions of the Legal Aid Act of 13 June 1980 No. 35 as amended, in order to
pursue legal action before domestic courts. He was entitled to do so both with regard to the
institution of a temporary injunction and with regard to the institutions of proceedings
seeking to invalidate the decision made by the Immigration Appeals Board.
4.5
The State Party points out that the author has not offered any prima facie evidence
that the above domestic legal remedies would be either unavailable or ineffective in his
case.
Author’s comments on the State party's observations
5.
On 30 April 2014, the author reiterated the comments he had provided to the
Immigration Appeals Board in a letter dated 15 October 2012,5 whereby he contested the
decision of the Directorate of Immigration and claimed that the Hindi interpreter before the
Directorate had not understood him correctly; that he had been unable to obtain any
information about his family; and that it was impossible for him to return to Myanmar.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
6.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights
Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not
it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
6.2
The State party has submitted that the Committee should not consider the present
communication, since the author has not instituted proceedings before a court to challenge
the lawfulness of the decision taken by the Immigration Appeal Board and/or to seek a
temporary injunction against his forcible removal from Norway. The author did not avail
himself of an opportunity to request free legal aid, despite being entitled to do so. The
author also did not offer any prima facie evidence that domestic legal remedies would be
not available or ineffective in his case.
6.3
In the absence of any pertinent information from the author, the Committee observes
that he has not pursued the domestic remedies available to him, as pointed out by the State
party. In the absence of any other information on file in this connection, the Committee
considers that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have
not been met in the present case. Accordingly, it concludes that it is precluded by article 5,
paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol to examine the present communication.
5
4
A copy of the letter is included on file.