CCPR/C/119/D/2293/2013
authors an administrative “expulsion order”. On 2 November 2012, the authors applied for
asylum.
4.2
According to a police report dated 30 October 2012, the authors stated that they
were willing to return to China and accepted the administrative expulsion order and twoyear re-entry ban, but did not want to confirm this in writing because they did not want to
specify the particular city to which they would return until after having conferred with their
lawyer. According to a police report dated 1 November 2012, the authors stated that they
could not return to China. According to a police report dated 2 November 2012, the authors
stated that they wanted to apply for asylum in Denmark. They feared for their lives in China
because E had experienced problems with the Chinese authorities after being found in
possession of anti-Communist material. According to an asylum registration report dated 5
November 2012, D stated that the Chinese police had found anti-Communist books in E’s
parents’ bookstore, and believed that the authors had brought the books with them from
Denmark. According to an asylum registration report dated 6 November 2012, E stated that,
when she had visited her parents’ bookstore on 21 February 2008, two policemen had
entered and had arrested her parents on the ground that some of the books were antiCommunist. E stated that the authors would be imprisoned if they returned to China. In his
asylum application dated 7 November 2012, D stated that the couple had brought the books
in question from Denmark. In her asylum application dated 7 November 2012, E stated that
the police believed that the authors had brought the books from Denmark.
4.3
During his interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 14 May 2013, D stated
that, in 2008, he had brought to China three copies of a chapter from a book entitled
“Comments on the Communist Party”. D also stated that the authors had brought the books
to China because they had wanted their families to read them. When confronted with the
fact that E had stated that she had brought the texts to China without D’s knowledge, D
replied that, owing to the passage of time, it was difficult to remember whether it had been
D’s decision or a joint decision. According to D, after the authors’ return to Denmark, E’s
brother had called and informed them that the police had come to look for the authors
because of their connection with the books. When asked why he had waited until 2012 to
apply for asylum, D replied that he had been able to stay in Denmark until then with a valid
work and residence permit and that G had informed him of the difficulty of obtaining
asylum. When asked how he had been able to obtain a renewed Chinese passport in 2009,
D stated that he assumed that the Chinese authorities had allowed him to renew his passport
so that he could return to China and be arrested.
4.4
In her interview with the Danish Immigration Service on 14 May 2013, E stated that
G had given her texts on anti-Communism, Falun Gong and the incident at Tiananmen
Square. When visiting her parents in 2008, she had brought several texts with her without
informing D. She had informed D, however, that she had given the texts to her parents, who
had then been arrested. A few days after the authors’ return to Denmark, E’s brother had
informed E by telephone that the police wanted the authors to return to China so that they
could be arrested.
4.5
The State party provides extensive information on domestic asylum procedures.2 In
reaching its determination on the authors’ case, the Refugee Appeals Board reasoned that
the authors had made inconsistent statements on several matters. For example, D had stated
that his parents-in-law had not known that the books were illegal and that he had not
warned them about this, but on another occasion had stated that he had in fact warned them
of this and had advised them to keep the books at home. D’s statement appeared to be
adapted to the situation and on several occasions, he had been unable to provide convincing
explanations when confronted with inconsistencies. He had given evasive and vague replies
to several of the Board’s questions, and had no recollection of several crucial issues,
including approximately how many times E had spoken to her elder brother about their
parents’ detention and the year in which she had last spoken with her brother. The authors
had also provided conflicting statements concerning several circumstances. For example,
according to D’s statements to the Immigration Service, he was aware that E had brought to
2
See communication No. 2379/2014, Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July
2016, paras. 4.1-4.4.
3