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.

Select target paragraph3