CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011
2.8
On 24 July 2009, the author applied for review of the DIAC decision by the Refugee
Review Tribunal (RRT). On 28 October 2009, RRT upheld the DIAC decision. RRT found
the author to be a credible witness who spoke convincingly about his conversion and
commitment to Christianity. The Tribunal also accepted that he had remained involved in
the church in South Africa and Australia because he had found comfort and solace there,
and not for the purpose of strengthening his refugee claim. The Tribunal accepted the
author’s claims about his family background and the negative attitude of his family
members and some of their associates to his conversion from Islam to Christianity. The
Tribunal accepted the author’s evidence that he feared harm from his family and
associates/friends of the family and that his family and associates belonged to the Mourides
Brotherhood. It accepted the author’s evidence that he was assaulted by his family and their
associates on two occasions because he had converted to Christianity, and that his family
was still looking for him when he returned to Senegal after 10 years in South Africa. It
found, however, that their motivation was related to their desire to punish him for his
conversion to Christianity, but had nothing to do with them being members of the Mourides
Brotherhood. The Tribunal did not accept that the author had a well-founded fear of harm
from the Mourides Brotherhood generally, in the light of independent country information
on the subject.
2.9
On 28 October 2009, a request for ministerial intervention pursuant to section 417 of
the 1958 Migration Act was referred by the RRT decision maker, with the request to
consider whether the author’s case amounted to unique and exceptional circumstances in
which it would be in the public interest to intervene. The request was rejected by the
Minister on 4 June 2010.
2.10 On 30 September 2010, the author filed a new request for ministerial intervention
pursuant to section 417 of the 1958 Migration Act. The Ministerial Intervention Unit
assessed the author’s case on 4 February 2011. As it was determined that there had been no
significant change in the author’s circumstances raising new substantive issues that had not
previously been considered, the request was denied.
The complaint
3.1
The author submits that he is living in fear of being physically harmed or killed,
either by the Mourides Brotherhood or his own family, for having converted from Islam to
Christianity.3 He adds that if he had been born a Christian in Senegal, he would not have
faced such persecution; it is his conversion that puts his life at risk. The author also submits
that the Senegalese police would not be able to protect him and would not be able to stop
the Brotherhood and his family killing him. Therefore, the author claims that his rights
under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant would be violated if he were forcibly returned to
Senegal by Australia.
3.2
As to the author’s claims under article 18 of the Covenant, he contends that if he
were forcibly returned to Senegal, he would not be able to practise his Christian religion.
He adds that he currently attends church services each week, and regularly studies the
Bible. He is a committed Christian and will never return to the Muslim faith. If he were
returned to Senegal, he would be subject to coercion, including the threat of death, by
members of his own Muslim family and by members of the Mourides Brotherhood to
convert back to Islam and thus be forced to forego his Christian faith.
3
4
The author annexes statements of support from the Senegambia Association in Australia (undated)
and the African Communities Council (dated 3 September 2010).