CCPR/C/130/D/2946/2017
Facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author’s family fled Afghanistan to the Islamic Republic of Iran because of a
conflict in which the father was kidnapped, tortured and shot, but survived. The author was
born in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The family moved several times within the country and
ultimately left it because of the father’s fear that he would be harmed by the same people
who had attacked him previously. The father has told the author little about his conflict in
Afghanistan, except that he was afraid to return to Afghanistan and that there were people
who were looking for him at the family’s home in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
2.2
The author is unsure when he left the Islamic Republic of Iran with his family. They
subsequently resided in Turkey for approximately 11 months. The author and his younger
brother lost contact with the rest of the family when, due to lack of space, they had to board
a separate boat while attempting to travel to Greece. They were arrested in Denmark, where
his younger brother was granted asylum as a minor.
2.3
The author had a grandfather in Afghanistan, with whom he used to speak on the
telephone once a year. The author is no longer aware of his grandfather’s exact whereabouts
or even of whether he is alive. He had a grandmother in the Islamic Republic of Iran, but
when the authors and his family left the country, she said that she might return to Afghanistan.
The author has had no contact with his grandmother and is unaware of her whereabouts. He
has no other relatives or other network in Afghanistan. He has never been to Afghanistan and
has not sufficiently mastered the language and traditions. For example, he is unable to
distinguish between Iranian and Afghan customs.
2.4
On 17 July 2016, the author’s asylum application was rejected by the Danish
Immigration Service. On 5 January 2017, the Refugee Appeals Board confirmed that decision
and the author was placed in pre-removal detention.
2.5
Meanwhile, on 31 December 2016, the author got a tattoo of a cross and a rose on his
arm. He explained that he knows the cross to be a Christian symbol, that he sympathizes with
Christianity and that he knows that it is about love, but that he has no further knowledge of
it and has not converted to Christianity. When asked about his awareness of the risks of
bearing a tattoo of a cross on his arm in Afghanistan, he explained that he could not
comprehend the idea of going there, as he has never been there and thus did not consider such
risks. In response to the question of whether he would have the tattoo removed if he were
deported to Afghanistan, the author said that he could not and would not remove what was
in his heart. He further explained that, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, he wore a cross around
his neck as a talisman, which he used to hide from everyone but his closest friends. He had
not told the State party’s authorities about the cross or the tattoo earlier because he did not
find them relevant to his case.
2.6
Based on this new information, the author requested a reopening of his asylum
application on 13 January 2017. Four days later, the Refugee Appeals Board responded that
the application would be processed within 10 to 12 months and that the procedure would not
have suspensive effect on his removal.
2.7
The author argues that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board cannot be appealed
in court and that, including in the light of the non-suspensive nature of his request for the
asylum application to be reopened, he has thus exhausted all available domestic remedies. 2
Complaint
3.
The author claims that his removal to Afghanistan would expose him to a real risk of
treatment contrary to articles 6 3 and 7 of the Covenant because he was born outside of
Afghanistan and has never been there, as well as because of his young age, lack of familiarity
with the languages and traditions of Afghanistan, lack of family or other social networks, his
2
3
2
The author refers to the information provided by the Government of Denmark on the implementation
of the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(CERD/C/DEN/CO/17/Add.1, para. 12).
The claim of a violation of article 6 of the Covenant is absent from the initial submission, but the
author introduces it in his comments on the State party’s observations.