CEDAW/C/70/D/76/2014
2.7
On 27 October 2014, the Refugee Appeals Board confirmed that decision.
2.8 The author contends that she has exhausted all domestic remedies, given that
decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are final.
Complaint
3.1 The author submits that her asylum application should be assessed with regard
to violations of her rights under the Convention, given that she has provided evidence
of gender-based violence. She claims that the State party has not complied with its
obligations under article 2 of the Convention and that the decision of the Refugee
Appeals Board violates the principle of non-refoulement and is not in line with the
Committee’s general recommendation No. 19 (1992) on violence against women. By
deporting her, Denmark would also violate articles 12 and 15 of the Convention.
3.2 The author fears that she will be killed by Al-Shabaab if deported to Somalia
because she was sentenced to death there. She also fears the family of A., who believe
that she killed him, and the family of her husband, owing to their reaction when
learning of her extramarital relationship.
3.3 The author also claims that the authorities have neither the ability nor the
willingness to provide her, as a woman, with protection from her husband ’s family
and A.’s family. In addition, she cannot take up residence elsewhere in Somalia; given
that she is a single woman, without the protection of the authorities or of her clan, she
will be at risk of abuse.
3.4 The author further claims that she has been subjected to gender-based violence
perpetrated by her husband’s brother. The fact that her brother-in-law could beat her
with complete impunity is illustrative of the oppression inflicted on women in
Somalia. Women are considered to be men’s property and, in the husband’s absence,
his family assumes those rights over his spouse.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 The State party set out its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the
communication, in a note verbale dated 5 Ma y 2015. It challenges the admissibility
of the communication. With regard to the merits, the State party affirms that the
provisions of the Convention would not be violated by the author ’s deportation to
Somalia.
4.2 The State party recalls that the author, a Somali national born in 1989, entered
Denmark on 16 May 2014 and applied for asylum. On 5 August 2014, the Immigration
Service rejected her application. On 27 October 2014, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals
Board confirmed that decision.
4.3 In its decision, the Refugee Appeals Board noted, inter alia, that the author had
claimed that she had not been a member of any political or religious association or
organization, nor had she been politically active. In her asylu m application, the author
claimed that she feared being deported to Somalia because she could be killed by
Al-Shabaab, given that the group had sentenced her to death. She also feared the
family of her deceased friend A., because they suspected her of havi ng killed him. In
support of her claims, she affirmed that she had been married since 2007, but that her
husband had disappeared in 2010; the last time that she had heard from him was in a
conversation by telephone, during which he informed her that he was being pursued
by Al-Shabaab. She began a relationship with A. in 2013. Her brother-in-law became
aware of it and told her to end the relationship, but she continued it. On 10 February
2014, her brother-in-law intruded into her home and stabbed A. with a knife. A. died
as a result. That same day, members of Al-Shabaab accused the author of the murder.
On 20 February 2014, she was sentenced to death as an unfaithful spouse and a
18-13456
3/9