CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014
1.1
The author of the communication is Y, a national of Bangladesh born in 1960 and
currently residing in Canada. She is subject to deportation following the rejection of her
application for refugee status in Canada. She asserts that by removing her to Bangladesh,
the State party would violate her rights under articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.
The Optional Protocol to the Covenant entered into force for the State party on 19 August
1976. The author is represented by counsel, Joseph W. Allen.
1.2
On 7 January 2014, pursuant to rules 92 and 97 of its rules of procedure, the
Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, requested the State party to refrain from removing the author to Bangladesh
while the communication is under consideration by the Committee. On 10 September 2015,
the Committee denied the State party’s request to lift interim measures. The author remains
in Canada.
1.3
On 13 August 2014, the Committee denied the State party’s request to split the
consideration of admissibility and the merits.
The facts as presented by the author
2.1
The author asserts that her sister, L., married a violent man, B., in Bangladesh.
Owing to B.’s abusive and violent behaviour, L. filed for divorce and went to the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the author’s brother, I., in 2005. After
the author’s father died in 2006, I., who was a British national, returned to Bangladesh.
There, he was murdered by three individuals: B., B.’s brother K.S. (a high-ranking army
officer) and one of their friends. Following a press conference held by the author’s family
and intervention from the British High Commissioner to Bangladesh, all three perpetrators
were convicted and sentenced to death in 2007. However, they filed an appeal of their
criminal convictions and their death sentences were reversed following a change in
Government. Reversal of death sentences is not unusual in Bangladesh, where sentences are
overturned with the arrival of a new Government.
2.2
Another of B.’s brothers, S. (a high-ranking police inspector), threatened to kill the
author and her family unless they withdrew their complaint against the three convicted
perpetrators. In October 2010, S. called the author’s mother and told her that his brother
and friend would soon be released from detention. He further stated: “You will continue to
lose your children one after another. Your daughter [the author] is our next target. You will
be our last target.” The police took no action against S. after the author’s mother informed
them about the call. Deeply concerned about the author’s safety, her daughter in Canada
sponsored her application for a Canadian visitor’s visa in November 2010. The author
obtained the visa in December 2010. A few days before her departure for Canada, she
started receiving phone calls from an unidentified individual who threatened to kill her. In
response, she filed a complaint at the Hajaribag police station in Dhaka, on 5 January 2011.
On the same day, she left for Canada. S. and the individuals who murdered the author’s
brother have influential contacts in the Government in Bangladesh.
2.3
The author’s son and numerous other relatives have applied for refugee protection in
the United Kingdom and L. has obtained refugee status there. All of the author’s siblings
have fled Bangladesh, and her ex-husband and children are in hiding. The author is
presently in Canada with her daughter, who is a permanent resident of Canada.
2.4
The author submits that she has exhausted domestic remedies in Canada. Her
application for refugee status was denied on 15 April 2013 and her application for leave to
commence judicial review of the negative asylum decision was denied on 23 August 2013.
When she submitted the communication to the Committee, she claimed that she was
2