CAT/C/70/D/743/2016
detention pending deportation to Turkey. He claims that his deportation to Turkey would
constitute a violation of his rights under article 3 of the Convention. The Convention entered
into force for the State party on 26 June 1987. The State party has made the declaration
pursuant to article 22 (1) of the Convention, effective from 26 June 1987.
1.2
On 28 April 2016, pursuant to rule 114, paragraph 1, of its rules of procedure, the
Committee, acting through its Rapporteur on new complaints and interim measures,
requested the State party not to deport the complainant to Turkey while the communication
was being considered by the Committee.
1.3
In the context of communication No. 580/2014, which the complainant had previously
submitted against the State party (see CAT/C/56/D/580/2014), the Committee, on 2 January
2014, had similarly requested the Government not to deport the complainant to Turkey while
that case was being considered by the Committee. On 2 July 2014, the State party had
informed the Committee that the complainant had been released and ordered to report to the
immigration authorities. On 28 June 2016, the State party informed the Committee that it had
decided not to accommodate the Committee’s request for interim measures in the present
case. In a note verbale dated 30 June 2016, the Committee reiterated its request for interim
measures and informed the State party that, in accordance with the Committee’s longstanding jurisprudence, failure to respect the request would constitute a serious breach of the
State party’s obligations under article 22 of the Convention. On 14 November 2019, the
complainant’s counsel confirmed that the complainant had been deported to Turkey.
Facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant is a Turkish citizen of Kurdish origin. He was arrested in Turkey on
several occasions in the period 2006–2010, owing to his political activities. He claims to have
been subjected to torture on these occasions.
2.2
The complainant sought asylum in Denmark, and requested the Danish Immigration
Service to order a medical examination for signs of past torture. The Danish Immigration
Service denied his request and rejected his asylum claim. On 30 August 2013, the majority
of the members of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board rejected his appeal of the decision to
reject his asylum application, based in particular on the complainant’s lack of credibility,
without conducting a medical examination regarding his torture claims.
2.3
The complainant’s second motive for seeking asylum was that he feared persecution
by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in Turkey, as he had been an active PKK member
before quitting in 2010. That claim was equally rejected by the Danish asylum authorities
owing to lack of credibility.
2.4
Previously, in 2008, the complainant had been called for compulsory military service
but had absconded, fearing that he would be obliged to fight against other Kurds and that he
would be mistreated in the army owing to his Kurdish origin. The fact that he had absconded
and sought asylum abroad would expose him to further risks of imprisonment, with a risk of
inhuman treatment in prison. However, the Danish asylum authorities decided that
imprisonment for absconding military service would not be disproportionate.
2.5
On 18 December 2013, the police tried to force the complainant to go to the Turkish
Embassy. According to the complainant, that action potentially drew even more attention to
him. He resisted and cut himself on his arms and torso. The detention centre guards handed
him over to the police to bring him to the Embassy, but before reaching the Embassy the
police reconsidered and returned him to the detention centre, without bringing him to hospital
first.
2.6
Based on these facts, on 19 December 2013, the complainant submitted a
communication to the Committee. In its decision dated 23 November 2015
(CAT/C/56/D/580/2014), the Committee considered that the deportation of the complainant
to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. In addition, the
Committee took the view that the State party had violated the requirements of article 12, read
in conjunction with article 16, of the Convention, owing to the manner in which the police
had treated the complainant and the subsequent lack of investigation.
2