CCPR/C/121/D/2585/2015
1.1
The authors of the communication are M.A.S., born on 1 December 1973, and his
wife, L.B.H., born on 1 October 1976. They present the communication on their own behalf
and on behalf of their three minor children: X, born on 15 January 2000; Y, born on 13
March 2003; and Z, born on 25 July 2012. The authors are nationals of the Syrian Arab
Republic seeking asylum in Denmark and subject to deportation to Bulgaria following the
Danish authorities’ rejection of their application for refugee status in Denmark. The authors
claim that by forcibly deporting them and their children to Bulgaria, Denmark would
violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. The authors were initially represented
by the Danish Refugee Council and subsequently by Hannah Krog. The Optional Protocol
entered into force for Denmark on 23 March 1976.
1.2
On 10 March 2015, pursuant to rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the
Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures requested the State party
to refrain from deporting the authors and their children to Bulgaria while their case was
under consideration by the Committee.
The facts as submitted by the authors
2.1
The authors are Kurds from the Syrian Arab Republic. They fled the country to seek
refuge in Europe due to the civil war. They first fled to Lebanon, then proceeded to Turkey
and arrived in Denmark in January 2014 through Bulgaria.
2.2
The authors allege that they paid an amount of money to go to Denmark, but the
agent dropped them near the Bulgarian border. He told them that they had arrived in
Denmark and immediately disappeared. The authors walked for about seven hours. On 13
July 2013, the authors and their children arrived in Bulgaria. The Bulgarian border guards
arrested them for illegal entry, fingerprinted them and registered them as asylum seekers.
The authors were detained in a prison for 23 days, in a 40 m2 room with five to six other
families. They allege that there were about 400 people detained in that prison, 14 of whom
were minors. Because of the unsuitability of the meals offered for their children 1 and the
harassment and degrading treatment they suffered in prison, 2 the authors decided to
undertake a hunger strike for three days, together with three other families, during which
they were not given any water. They maintained their strike until their release, which took
place following a visit from a humanitarian organization 3 and media pressure.4
1
2
3
2
In particular, their youngest child was only 1 year old and still drank replacement milk. Due to the
conditions in prison, they had no choice but to feed her the unsuitable food they were given. They had
to ask the prison staff to buy breast-milk substitute, but not all the prison guards were willing to do
this for them. They did not receive nappies either.
This was the authors’ statement in their initial communication to the Committee dated 9 March 2015.
However, in their asylum screening interviews before the Danish Immigration Service on 17 January
and 4 February 2014, respectively, M.A.S. declared that they had gone on hunger strike as a protest
against their arrest, while L.B.H. declared that they had gone on hunger strike hoping that the
authorities would release them. Moreover, in the statement made by M.A.S. at the consultation with
the Service on 16 July 2014, they mentioned that they had not been subjected to physical assaults
during their detention but that the police/prison staff had acted violently towards M.A.S. when they
wanted to fingerprint him and he had refused, whereupon they undressed him. M.A.S. also conceded
that he had not lodged a complaint with a superior authority about the treatment that they had been
subjected to by the police and prison staff. Following L.B.H.’s interview with the Service, she
mentioned that during her detention she suffered no physical assaults, but that the couple had been
spoken to and looked at in a very degrading manner. They had been given a limited amount of food,
and the food had been bad. L.B.H. reported that she did not lodge a complaint with a superior
authority about the treatment because they were too afraid to do so, as there was already negative
public feeling about refugees in Bulgaria. In its decision of 8 December 2014 the Refugee Appeals
Board also mentions that at the hearing, L.B.H. declared that when she was arrested, she was put on
the floor and started to cry. The police allegedly undressed her spouse and children. She was so upset
that she fainted. The police took her to hospital and afterwards to prison, where she was reunited with
her family.
The authors did not mention the name of the organization. However, in his consultation with the
Danish Immigration Service on 16 July 2014, M.A.S. mentioned that relief organizations, “maybe the