CCPR/C/119/D/2293/2013 The facts as presented by the authors 2.1 In 2005, D arrived in Denmark and obtained work and residence permits. His wife, E, moved to Denmark in 2007. In Copenhagen, the authors met several times with a Falun Gong follower named G, who gave them books written by representatives of the Falun Gong movement. The books contained criticisms of the Chinese regime. Neither of the authors joined the Falun Gong movement. However, E found the books interesting and decided that, during the authors’ annual visit to China, she would give a few of them to her parents, who owned a bookstore in a town near the city of Qingdao. 2.2 Thus, when the authors travelled to China in February 2008, E gave two of the books to her parents, who displayed them on a shelf. As a result, on 21 February 2008, police came to the store and arrested E’s parents as the store owners. The authors hurried back to Denmark the next day. On 23 February 2008, agents of the Chinese police searched the place where the authors had stayed during their visit, but found nothing of interest. Since then, the authors have not visited China for fear of persecution. D’s mother, who has lived in Denmark since August 2008 and returns to China once a year, told the authors that E’s parents were still in prison and that their store had closed. 2.3 Shortly after the authors’ return to Denmark, D went to see G and recounted the incident in China. They discussed the authors’ eligibility for asylum, but G advised that the authors needed to be members of Falun Gong in order to obtain refugee status. The authors did not wish to become members of Falun Gong and thus did not apply for asylum at that time. However, D’s work permit expired in the summer of 2012, and the authors, fearing returning to China, felt that their only option was to seek asylum in Denmark. 2.4 The authors filed an asylum application on 2 November 2012; it was denied by the Danish Immigration Service on 14 August 2013. The Immigration Service had rejected the authors’ request to hear G as a witness. The authors then appealed the decision to the Refugee Appeals Board. On 7 October 2013, their counsel sent a letter to the Board requesting that G be heard as a witness. 2.5 The authors submit that they have exhausted domestic remedies. On 10 October 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board denied the authors’ appeal without hearing G’s testimony. Under Danish law, the Board’s decision may not be appealed before the Danish courts. The complaint 3.1 The authors assert that the State party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant by forcibly removing them to China, where they risk being imprisoned and subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment for having brought into China books on Falun Gong. The authors gave the books to E’s parents, who were arrested and imprisoned for having displayed the books in their store. 3.2 The authors claim that the Refugee Appeals Board violated their rights under articles 14 and 26 by denying their written request to call a material witness during the asylum proceedings. The witness, G, could have confirmed that, in 2008, the authors had told him about the incident in China. Thus, his testimony could have favourably affected the credibility assessment performed by the Danish authorities. When an issue concerning credibility can be elucidated by an investigation, the State may not refuse to conduct such an investigation before forming a conclusion on credibility. State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits 4.1 In its observations dated 25 April 2014, the State party adds to the factual background of the communication. It states that D had entered Denmark after having obtained a temporary residence permit on 11 September 2005. Then, E entered Denmark in 2007 with a valid visa and, on 25 October 2007, she was granted a temporary residence permit. On 24 October 2012, agents of the Copenhagen Police encountered the authors in a restaurant where they were working. At that time, they had lost their right to reside in Denmark. Accordingly, they were detained and charged with illegal residence under the Danish Aliens Act. On 26 October 2012, the Danish Immigration Service issued to the 2

Select target paragraph3