CCPR/C/117/D/2415/2014
1.1
The author of the communication is A.M.M., a national of Pakistan born on 12 May
1957. He claims that the State party will violate his rights under articles 6, 7, 14 and 19 of
the Covenant if he is returned to his country of origin. The Optional Protocol entered into
force for the State party on 6 January 1972.
1.2
A.M.M. entered Denmark on 28 August 2009 with a Schengen visa issued by the
Danish embassy in Islamabad. At the time of submission, he was in detention awaiting
deportation. The author submits that, if Denmark proceeds with his forcible return to
Pakistan, that would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7, 14 and 182 by the
State party. The author is represented by counsel.
1.3
On 4 June 2014, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, the Committee, acting
through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided not
to issue a request for interim measures.
Facts as presented by the author
2.1
A.M.M. is a Pakistani national, ethnic Punjabi and Sunni Muslim from Lahore.
A.M.M. is from a family affiliated with the Pakistan Peoples Party, founded by Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto in 1973. In a judiciary-sanctioned decision, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged in 1979.
A.M.M. describes his family as “diehard workers” for the Pakistan Peoples Party and he
and his brothers were held in prison in the 1980s and subjected to torture for their political
involvement with the Party. While three of his brothers escaped to Denmark in 1986 and
were granted political asylum, the author stayed in Pakistan.
2.2
Benazir Bhutto, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s daughter, assumed the party’s leadership and
served as prime minister twice, first from 1988 to 1990 and then from 1993 to 1996. During
Benazir Bhutto’s term, the author was appointed as assistant manager of administration and
personnel in a subgovernmental agency in Karachi and one of his brothers as a media
consultant. After Benazir Bhutto left office in 1996 and Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan
Muslim League came to power the author claims he and his family “found themselves
again in trouble”.
2.3
During the term of the Pakistan Muslim League, the author was approached by one
of his brother’s friends, who invited him to go to India as part of a peace delegation. That
person took care of the visa and in February 2005 the author travelled to New Delhi, by
bus, as part of a group of about sixteen or seventeen others, all of whom were students,
unlike him. He claims that, when he returned, he was repeatedly contacted, by phone and in
person, by an individual from the intelligence service of Pakistan. After some time, an India
delegation visited Pakistan as part of the Indo-Pak Forum for Peace. When the Indian
delegation left, the man from the intelligence service told the author there would not be
peace between India and Pakistan and that he should work for them. The author was afraid
of refusing and tried to avoid him, but when he did not answer his phone he was
approached in person, and one day he was told “we are friends of friends and we are
enemies of enemies, and if you avoid us, we are there to get you”.
2.4
The author submits that the intelligence service then started to interfere with his steel
business (a dealership of Pakistan Steel Mills, a State-owned corporation) and the situation
became so difficult that he could only either work for them or run away. He followed his
wife’s and mother’s advice to apply for a visa to Denmark, as he had already visited the
2
2
In the initial communication, the author claimed a violation of article 18 of the Covenant. However,
in his comments on the State party’s observations, he submitted that he had meant to invoke article 19
of the Covenant.