CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014
before leaving Pakistan demonstrated that there was a real risk that they would be
persecuted if they were returned to Pakistan.
2.8
In its decision of 3 March 2014, the Board stated that it had found it surprising that
only after two refusals, in two instances, and only after G and his wife had been granted a
residence permit, did the authors decide to refer to their situation in the request to reopen
the asylum proceedings. The Board further recalled that G had had no relationship with the
authors since 2011 and that G’s wife’s family had never visited the authors prior to their
departure from Pakistan in June 2012. Lastly, the Board noted that being a Christian in
Pakistan was not in itself a sufficient ground for protection under the Danish Aliens Act;
that the authors had not had any conflicts with the Pakistani authorities; and that the general
situation in Pakistan did not have any impact on its decision. In accordance with the
Board’s decision of 13 June 2013, the authors were therefore under the obligation to leave
the country.
2.9
The authors further argue that the Board did not call them for a new hearing but only
adopted a written decision, thereby jumping to a hasty conclusion concerning their sincerity
and credibility. The authors submit that the Board acknowledged that the attacks at I.G.’s
school had taken place on 25 May 2012; that the attack on the authors on their way home
from church had taken place on Sunday, 27 May 2012; and that the attempted shooting of
the son G in May and November 2011, on the basis of which the Board had decided to
grant asylum to G and his wife, had probably been initiated by the wife’s father, who
resided in England. In the light of the foregoing, the authors argue that they would be at
even greater risk upon their return to Pakistan because G’s wife’s family would probably
harass them in order to discover her whereabouts, as G’s location in Denmark had been
kept secret. The authors further argue that the background information on the situation in
Pakistan with regard to Christians in general, and converts in particular, supports the real
basis of their fears.
2.10 The authors submit that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies as no
judicial review of the Board’s decision is available. They also indicate that the same subject
matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or
settlement.
The complaint
3.1
The authors claim that by forcibly returning them to Pakistan, Denmark would
violate their rights under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant as they would again be
exposed to threats to their lives because they are Christians and because of their family
links with G and his wife, who were subjected to violent attacks in 2011. They claim that
the risk of harassment they would face upon their return to Pakistan is higher than the one
they faced before leaving the country.
3.2
The authors also claim that the violent attacks they themselves suffered in May 2012
and the shooting incidents of May and November 2011 involving G demonstrate that they
face a real risk of losing their lives or being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment,
in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, if deported to Pakistan. The authors
argue that their fears are supported by the background information available on the situation
of Christians, especially converts, in Pakistan. The authors further argue that, if returned to
Pakistan, they will be obliged to hide their religious convictions and thus be hindered in the
free exercise of their religion, in violation of article 18 of the Covenant.
3.3
The authors finally argue that the risk of their being harassed upon their return to
Pakistan is greater because of the deteriorating overall situation in the country, a result of
the recent amendments to the country’s blasphemy laws.
5