CEDAW/C/69/D/80/2015
appeared as A.N., as it had not been corrected in the aliens register. On 8 December
2014, the Board corrected her name in the decision.
2.5 The author claims that, because no appeal can be made against the Board’s
decision, she has exhausted all available domestic remedies.
2.6 The author was baptised on 24 February 2013 in the Free Church of Horsens,
Denmark. 1 She participated in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community
activities, including protests in front of the Embassy of Uganda in Hellerup against
that country’s Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2014. She also delivered lectures at schools
of continuing studies. 2
Complaint
3.1 The author submits that, if returned to Uganda, her life would be in danger at
the hands of the police and ordinary people. She adds that she fled repression not only
as a lesbian but also as a woman, given that Uganda is an extremely patriarchal
country. She underlines what she claims to be the homophobic nat ure of the country,
as attested to by a bill before Parliament to prohibit the promotion of what are termed
“unnatural sexual practices”.
3.2 The author asserts that her case was not properly investigated by the Refugee
Appeals Board and complains about its failure to provide reasoning for its decision
on whether the Convention would be violated in the event of her being returned. She
states that the Board denied her request to have her girlfriend in Denmark appear
before it as a witness.
3.3 Because the Board’s final decision of 5 December 2014 did not reflect her name
accurately and was corrected subsequently only by hand, the author maintains that
her application for protection against persecution as a woman was not taken seriously.
Furthermore, the Board denied her request to call a witness to testify in her case
during its proceedings.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 By a note verbale of 14 July 2015, the State party submitted its observations on
the admissibility and the merits of the communication.
4.2 The State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case
for the purpose of admissibility of her communication. It adds that the Refugee
Appeals Board was unable to accept any part of the author’s statements as fact and
recalls inconsistencies in her statements.
4.3 Furthermore, the State party provides a comprehensive description of the
organization, composition, duties, prerogatives and jurisdiction of the Board and the
guarantees for asylum seekers, including legal representation, the presence of an
interpreter and the possibility for asylum seekers to make a statement on appeal. It
notes that the Board has a comprehensive collection of general background material
on the situation in countries from which the State party receives asylum seekers,
updated and supplemented on a continual basis from various recognized sources, all
of which it takes into consideration when assessing cases.
4.4 Referring to M.N.N. v. Denmark, 3 the State party maintains that the
extraterritorial effect of the Convention may obtain only where it is foreseeable that
serious gender-based violence would occur upon the author’s return. It therefore
__________________
1
2
3
18-06594
The author has not invoked her conversion as a ground for asylum, nor has she raised it in her
communication before the Committee.
No further details are provided.
CEDAW/C/55/D/33/2011.
3/11