CCPR/C/117/D/2415/2014
country in 1996 to see his brothers. He took all of his documents, as he intended to apply
for political asylum.
2.5
The author arrived in Denmark on 28 August 2009 on a tourist visa and stayed with
his brothers. He requested an extension of his visa but it was denied and upon his brothers’
advice he did not apply for asylum, afraid of being arrested and deported back to Pakistan.
Subsequently, the author contacted Amnesty International, which recommended that he
apply for asylum as soon as possible, which he did on 19 January 2012.
2.6
After the author applied for asylum, he lived in asylum centres for a year. During the
interview process with the police, the author felt uncomfortable relating the details of his
story because the appointed interpreter knew him and his family. The author submits that,
during that process, he was receiving threatening messages from the people in the
intelligence service in Pakistan, who were not pleased with his departure from the country.
He further submits that, if he were deported back to Pakistan, he would be arrested at the
airport by the intelligence service and he fears for his life under their custody. In that
context, he submits that the intelligence agencies had pressured him into allowing a
chairman of Pakistan Steel Mills to misuse his business. As a consequence, investigations
are now ongoing against the author.
2.7
The author’s request for asylum was refused on 11 May 2012 by the Danish
Immigration Services. The decision was confirmed by the Danish Refugee Board on
10 October 2012, which considered that the author had failed to provide coherent and
convincing explanations regarding the intelligence service’s enquiries to him. The author
requested that the Danish Refugee Board reopen his asylum case twice, first by submitting
additional documents and second by invoking the overall situation in Pakistan. The Danish
Refugee Board refused to reopen the case, first on 21 March 2014 and then again on 4 June
2014, on the grounds that no new relevant information had been submitted, and upheld its
decision of 10 October 2012.
Complaint
3.1
The author submits that his deportation to Pakistan would lead to his arrest by the
intelligence service, who would eventually kill or torture him, and the State party will
violate his right to life and the right not to be tortured that are guaranteed under articles 6
and 7 of the Covenant, respectively.
3.2
The author also invokes a violation of article 14 of the Covenant, because the
decisions of the Refugee Board became final without the possibility of them being appealed
before the courts, which in the author’s opinion is discriminatory against foreigners seeking
asylum in the State party. The author further invokes a violation of his right to political
freedom under article 18 of the Covenant. 3
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication
4.1
In its submission dated 4 December 2014, the State party provided observations on
admissibility and the merits of the communication.
4.2
The State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible
and, if the Committee considers it admissible, the State party submits that it will not violate
the provisions under articles 6, 7, 14 and 18 of the Covenant if the author is returned to
Pakistan.
3
See footnote 2 above.
3