CEDAW/C/73/D/86/2015
and of her taking their two youngest daughters with her. The author presented the
signed declaration to the authorities both in the context of the visa application process
and at the airport before her departure.
2.5 On 17 November 2012, the author and her two daughters entered Denmark with
their Jordanian passports and valid visas issued by the Embassy of D enmark to
Jordan.
2.6 On 16 August 2013, the author submitted an application for asylum, which was
rejected by the Danish Immigration Service on 11 October 2013. On 21 January 2014,
the Danish Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal of the author ’s asylum
application. The Board concluded that the author’s claims lacked credibility, given
that her explanations and account of facts were evasive, unclear and at some points
inconsistent and appeared to have been fabricated.
2.7 In March 2014, the author learned that her husband was accusing her of
kidnapping their two daughters who had accompanied her to Denmark. The author ’s
son, who was still residing in Jordan, had overheard a conversation between the
author’s husband and his family in which reference was made to a warrant for the
arrest of the author. A few weeks later, the author’s son had the opportunity to take a
photograph of the arrest warrant, according to which, on 24 August 2013, the author
had been sentenced in absentia to two years’ imprisonment for the abduction of her
daughters.
2.8 On 9 July 2014, the author requested the Refugee Appeals Board to reopen her
asylum case on the basis of the arrest warrant. On 14 April 2015, the Board rejected
that request on the presumed grounds that the arrest wa rrant had been fabricated with
a view to substantiating the author’s asylum claim.
2.9 On 23 April 2015, the Danish authorities informed the author that the
deportation to Jordan would take place within a few weeks.
2.10 The author contends that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies and
that the communication is not being examined under any other procedure of
international investigation or settlement.
Complaint
3.1 The author claims that the State party would breach its obligations under
articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (e) and (f), and article 15 (4) of
the Convention by returning her and her daughters to Jordan.
3.2 With respect to articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (e) and (f),
she claims that, upon their return to Jordan, she and her daughters would be subjected
to inhuman and degrading treatment, domestic violence and serious abuse. In
particular, she fears the rage of her husband, because she has dishonoured him, and
she fears that he will kill her and their daughters. The author noted that, for 25 years,
she lived in a marriage in which she and her children were exposed to violence and
degrading treatment and were under the permanent control of her husband and that
she had no prospect of seeking protection from the Jordanian authorities, given their
discriminatory practices and the powerful status of her husband ’s family, facts which
together can be characterized as gender-related discrimination and violence. She
claims that her travel to Denmark, the subsequent threats from her spouse and the
warrant issued for her arrest have only intensified the conflict between her and her
husband. She submits that, notwithstanding her repeated requests in the context of the
asylum proceedings, the State party authorities failed to apply a gender-sensitive
approach. In that regard, she refers to the Committee ’s general recommendation
No. 19 (1992) on violence against women and general recommendation No. 32 (2014)
19-15427
3/13