departure until further notice, in accordance with the Committee’s request. On 5 September
2014, the State party requested the Committee to lift the interim measures with respect to
the authors, arguing that they had failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of
admissibility and that the communication was not sufficiently substantiated. On 24
November 2014, the Committee denied the State party’s request to lift the interim
measures.1 The authors currently reside in Denmark.
The facts as submitted by the author
The authors claim that they were subjected to harassment in Pakistan because of
their Christian background. They claim that on 25 May 2012, I.G. was accused of
preaching Christianity to Muslims and beaten by older Muslim schoolmates while in
school. The following Sunday, 27 May 2012, the whole family was attacked by four young
men, two of whom were among the older schoolmates of I.G. who had attacked him at
school, and two other, slightly older men, who attacked the family as they were on their
way home from church. One of I.G.’s minor sisters was bleeding as a result of the beating.
The men threatened to kill I.G. and to kidnap his sisters. Later the same night, the authors’
house was set on fire. The family immediately fled to the mother’s cousin in Karachi, who
helped them to leave the country on 18 June 2012 for Denmark.
The authors did not file a complaint with the police in Pakistan as they had no
confidence in the authorities and feared reprisals. They also claim that although they were
not harassed because of their religious beliefs prior to these events, public reports referring
to other attacks around the country demonstrate that Muslim militants will not shy away
from killing non-Muslims who have been targeted. In this connection, the authors claim
that the risks described stem from their religious beliefs and that, if returned to Pakistan,
they will be forced to hide their beliefs and will be hindered in the free exercise of their
The authors entered Denmark on 9 July 2012, without valid travel documents. They
applied for asylum, but their request for a residence permit under section 7 of the Aliens
Act was refused by the Danish Immigration Service on 22 March 2013. On 13 June 2013,
the Danish Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal of the Danish Immigration Service to
grant asylum to the authors. 2 The authors have indicated as grounds for asylum their fear
that if they are returned to Pakistan they will be killed by the group of young Muslim men
who had threatened I.G. and his family. They further fear that the minor daughters will be
assaulted and raped. In a letter dated 12 August 2013, the author’s counsel requested the
Board to reopen the authors’ asylum proceedings. The authors were called to the police
station on 12 February 2014, where they decided to agree in writing to a voluntary return in
order to avoid being detained at the Ellebæk detention centre prior to their deportation,
which was planned for 5 March 2014, on a flight departing at 7.10 p.m.3 On 3 March 2014,
the Board decided that it had found no basis for reopening the asylum proceedings, nor did
it find any reasons for extending the time limit for the authors’ departure, as no substantial
new information or views had been submitted beyond the information available at the initial
hearing by the Board. The Board reaffirmed its negative decision of 13 June 2013.
In its decision of 13 June 2013, the Board noted that the authors and their family had
not been members of any political or religious associations or organizations, nor had they
been politically active in any other way. They had not had any conflicts with the Pakistani


The State party requested that interim measures be lifted because the authors had failed to substantiate
that, if returned to Pakistan, they would be at risk of suffering irreparable harm.
The authors’ cases have been treated jointly by the Danish Immigration Service and the Board.
The deportation was scheduled within 24 hours after the receipt of the initial complaint.


Select target paragraph3