CEDAW/C/73/D/94/2015
2.5 The author was subjected to a language test by the Immigration Service, which
did not believe that she was from Central Somalia. The author re jects the analysis.
She adds that, according to a report by an independent authority analysing refugee
dialects, the results of the test were not accurate. The Refugee Appeals Board did not
take that information into account and declined any objections aga inst the language
test. Thus, the author submits that her right to a fair trial was violated.
2.6 The Refugee Appeals Board also indicated that the author ’s claim appeared to
have been constructed for the occasion and not personally experienced. The autho r
notes that she was under a lot of stress during her interview with the Immigration
Service, owing to the imminent risk of retribution if asylum was refused, which is
why her explanations may have seemed unconvincing. The author also notes that she
faces a real risk of persecution in Somalia, given that she evaded being forcibly
married to a high-ranking Al-Shabaab member. Furthermore, there was no
consideration of the psychological and physical effects of her experience in Somalia
by the Board. It also did not assess the extent of the danger that she was in.
2.7 The author also fears persecution in her home town by Al -Shabaab forces or
being forcibly married.
2.8 The author indicates that, because the decisions by the Refugee Appeals Board
could not be appealed in court under the Aliens Act, she has exhausted the available
domestic remedies.
2.9 On 23 September 2015, the author provided evidence of a Refugee Appeals
Board decision in which the asylum request of another woman facing similar
circumstances 3 had been granted.
Complaint
3.1 The author claims that the authorities failed to assess her asylum application
pursuant to their obligations under the Convention.
3.2 The author further claims that Denmark would be in violation of articles 3, 5
and 16 (b) of the Convention in the event of her deportation to Somalia.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 The State party presented its observations on admissibility and the merits in a
note verbale dated 15 March 2016. It informs the Committee that, on 25 September
2015, the Refugee Appeals Board suspended the time limit for the author ’s
deportation, following the Committee’s request for interim measures. The State party
hereby recalls the facts: the author, a Somali national born in 1988, entered Denmark
on 13 August 2014 without valid documents and applied for asylum. On 21 July 2015,
the Immigration Service rejected her application. On 4 September 2015, the Board
confirmed that decision.
4.2 The State party examines the reasoning of the Refugee Appeals Board in its
decision of 20 August 2015. It notes that the Board could not accept as a fact the
author’s statement on her grounds for asylum, as it appeared inconsistent, and doubted
the credibility of the author’s story. The author, when interviewed by the Immigration
__________________
3
19-15435
The woman was raised by a foster family in the south of Somalia that treated her v ery badly and
wanted to marry her to an elderly man when she turned 15 years of age. The marriage was aimed
at settling a conflict between rival clans, and they threatened to kill her if she refused. The
woman first fled to Syria and then, because of the civil war there, to Denmark. The Refugee
Appeals Board seemed to have placed more weight on the fact that she was born in Mogadishu,
had suffered from a clan conflict and was being forced to marry against her will. She also had no
support network and hence was at risk of persecution.
3/11