CCPR/C/123/D/2328/2014
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that his deportation from Denmark to Afghanistan would violate
his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, as he would be at risk of being killed,
kidnapped or raped by the Taliban. He submits, in particular, that he belongs to the Hazara
minority, which is under attack from the Taliban, who are mainly ethnic Pashtuns. He adds
that he would not be able to find protection because he has no family left in Afghanistan
and because the ethnic group to which he belongs is persecuted all over the country.
3.2
The author also refers to the Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International
Protection Needs of Asylum-seekers from Afghanistan, published by the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on 6 August 2013, according
to which individuals with, inter alia, the following profiles may be in need of international
protection: individuals associated with, or perceived as supportive of the Government of
Afghanistan and the international community, including the international military forces;
men and boys of fighting age; individuals perceived as contravening the Taliban’s
interpretation of Islamic principles, norms and values; and members of (minority) ethnic
groups. He explains that, owing to his travel to Europe, if he were returned to Afghanistan,
he would certainly be perceived as having contravened Islamic rules and as being
supportive of the Government and/or the international community. He further claims that,
given his age, he would be at risk of being forced to fight either for the Government or for
the Taliban, and he alleges that sexual assaults on young men are commonly reported in
Afghanistan.4
3.3
The author also claims that, pursuant to the aforementioned Eligibility Guidelines
and contrary to the assessment made by the Board in its decision of 23 January 2012, he
certainly needs international protection as a young ethnic Hazara from the Wardak Province.
Furthermore, the Eligibility Guidelines make it clear that numerous factors should be taken
into account in the evaluation of the availability of internal flight or relocation alternatives
in Afghanistan. In this connection, the author submits that the failure of the Board to take
those factors into consideration in taking its decision of 23 January 2012 and in maintaining
the initial order, obliging the author to leave Denmark, constitutes a violation of articles 6
and 7 of the Covenant.
3.4
The author further submits that his right under article 14 of the Covenant has been
violated, since a decision on his asylum application taken by the Board under the
administrative procedure could not be appealed to a judicial body. 5
3.5
In the subsequent submission of 24 September 2014, the author added a claim under
article 13 of the Covenant, arguing that his risk of persecution and suffering of irreparable
harm upon return to Afghanistan had not been assessed in accordance with the procedural
guarantees of this article, since he was unable to appeal the decision of the Board to a
judicial body.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 8 July 2014, the State party recalls the facts on which the present communication
is based and the author’s claims, and submits that the communication should be declared
inadmissible. Should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party
submits that no violation of the provisions of the Covenant will occur if the author is
deported to Afghanistan.
4.2
The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Board,
which it considers to be an independent and quasi-judicial body,6 and the legal basis of its
decisions.7
4
5
6
7
The author does not provide further details on this matter.
The author refers to the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17), para. 13.
See Ahmed et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1–4.3.
The State party refers to sections 7 (1), 7 (2), 31 (1) and 31 (2) of the Aliens Act.
3