CCPR/C/117/D/2443/2014
since she stayed for a couple of years in Chechnya after her son’s departure and the
authorities were only looking for her son, the Service did not consider her to be in danger of
persecution. On 6 March 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the author’s asylum
claim for lack of credibility. On 24 March 2014, the author requested the Board to reopen
the asylum proceedings. In an attempt to prove that the authorities were still searching for
her, she submitted two summonses, a wanted person notice, letters from her family and
neighbours, and a letter from a non-governmental organization in Chechnya.3 The author
claims that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State party assessed the authenticity of the
documents. On 1 July 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the case. It
considered the documents submitted by the author inauthentic and concluded that it had not
been provided with significantly new information or opinions concerning the case.
The complaint
3.
The author claims that, if deported to the Russian Federation, she would be at risk of
torture and arbitrary detention, contrary to articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant, since she is
considered a rebel sympathizer and her son was actively involved with the rebels. She
maintains that her son’s activities do not seem to be taken seriously by the Refugee Appeals
Board.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 19 January 2015, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and
the merits of the communication. In its observations, the State party provides a detailed
description of its refugee status application proceedings, the legal basis and the functioning
of the Refugee Appeals Board.4
4.2
The State party reports that, on 28 May 2010, the author’s son was granted asylum
under section 7 (1) of the Danish Aliens Act. According to the case documents relating to
the author’s son, he relied on his fear of the Chechen authorities, which suspected him of
having assisted the rebels. The son stated during his asylum proceedings that he was
arrested and detained for 45 days by the Russian authorities during the first war in
Chechnya in 1996 and that he had also been subjected to physical abuse. In 1999, he joined
the rebels. He was injured during fighting and had therefore gone home. In 2006, he was
interrogated by the police about his role among the rebels. He signed a document saying
that he had helped General Galaev. He was granted amnesty for his actions. In October
2009, he helped a rebel acquaintance procure various food items and tools for the rebels. In
November 2009, his workplace was searched by Russian military forces. He was taken to
the police station on that occasion and was shown photographs, from among which he
pointed out two acquaintances. He was fingerprinted. The next day, he took up residence
with a relative in Naurskij and hid there until his departure in February 2010. Upon his
arrival in Denmark, his brother said that, in connection with a search for rebels, some items
had been found with his fingerprints on them. It also appears from the case file of the
3
4
The documents submitted by the author on 25 March 2014 are the following: (a) two summonses (one
dated 11 April 2013 and one undated) for a person named S.Z. to appear for questioning as a witness;
(b) a letter dated 7 March 2014 from a neighbour; (c) a personal card; (d) a letter dated 7 March 2014
from K.T.M., the author’s niece, confirming that the author had been hospitalized in March 2013 at
the hospital where she worked and that K.T.M.’s friend helped the author leave the hospital; and
(e) a letter dated 31 March 2014 from K.M.M., the author’s brother. The documents submitted on 26
March 2014 are the following: (a) an undated “wanted person” notice concerning the author; and (b)
the letter dated 5 February 2014 signed by the director of the organization Objective (see footnote 1).
For a full description, see communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views
adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1-4.4.
3