CEDAW/C/60/D/51/2013
Factual background
2.1 The author claims that she was threatened, raped, burned with hot oil and
forced into prostitution by criminals in China, without providing dates for those
events or further details. Her husband, a passionate gambler, had allegedly borrowed
money from them and she had been forced to sign a document making her
responsible for repaying the debts. She submits that she could not seek protection
from the police in China because gender-based violence is not acknowledged by the
authorities as an issue of concern, referring to the concluding comments of the
Committee on the sixth periodic report of China. 1
2.2 The author submits that she fled China before 2006 and travelled in various
countries, without providing a precise date of departure from China or arrival in
Denmark. She contends that she had to flee the country and seek asylum in
Denmark to escape the relentless threats of violence and increasing pressure that she
faced in China. She fears that, if she returns to China, the same network of criminals
will find her and kill her as revenge or that she will again be raped and sexually
exploited until she pays off her husband’s debts.
2.3 On 31 May 2010, the author ’s application for asylum was rejected as
manifestly unfounded by the Danish Immigration Service under section 53b (2) of
the Aliens Act. The author contends that she was not assigned counsel during the
processing of her case and that she had no access to legal assistance until her
detention in January 2010. For that reason, she did not refer directly to the
provisions of the Convention in her applications, although the issue of gender -based
violence was raised during the processing of the case. No further details are
provided in her submission.
2.4 The author claims to have exhausted all domestic remedies because the
decision of the Danish Immigration Service is final and not subject to further
appeal, either to the Refugee Appeals Board or to a court. According to her, she
remains in detention in a camp as a rejected asylum seeker, awaiting her forced
deportation.
Complaint
3.1 The author claims that her deportation to China would constitute a violation of
her rights under articles 1 to 3, 12 and 15 of the Convention, read in conjunction
with the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19.
3.2 The author contends that, because her application for asylum was denied,
without the right to appeal, as manifestly unfound ed, she was discriminated against
as a woman, given that she was denied access to justice on an equal basis with men.
She specifies that female asylum seekers are not allowed to have a fair trial with the
assistance of legal counsel and have a restricted right to appeal compared with male
asylum seekers. She is of the position that it appears to be a gender-biased practice
to regard the problems of single female asylum seekers as unsubstantiated and
manifestly unfounded. She therefore argues that the Danish legal system is lacking
gender sensitivity, as demonstrated by the fact that relatively more single female
asylum seekers are denied asylum under the manifestly unfounded procedure and
deported, without the right to appeal, than male asylum seekers. Thus, the author
__________________
1
15-05832
See CEDAW/C/CHN/CO/6, paras. 20-22.
3/15