Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2651/2015
in the birth of her son. Therefore, a return thereto would amount to a breach of article 7 of
the Covenant.
3.3
The author also submits that a removal to Italy would violate article 24 of the
Covenant. Her son would be exposed to living in the streets in Italy and she would be at risk
of further sexual abuse. If returned to Ethiopia, her son would suffer from a high risk of
detention and harm to his single mother due to her and her family’s affiliation with the OLF.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 24 March 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and
merits. It notes that the DIS rejected the author’s asylum application on 14 July 2015. On 4
September 2015, the RAB upheld this decision.
4.2
The State party provides a description of its relevant domestic law and procedures,
the legal basis for the decisions taken by the RAB, the proceedings before it as well as the
legal standards applied, including the principle of the country of first asylum.
4.3
The State party submits that the author argues incorrectly that the DIS had decided
that Italy was to serve as the country of first asylum for her and her son. Indeed, the DIS did
not consider that they would risk persecution in Ethiopia, as it considered her statements not
to be credible. The DIS also found her to be a low profile individual, as it was unlikely that
she was persecuted by the Ethiopian authorities due to her family’s or her own support for
the OLF. Only if the RAB were to accept her statements as facts and find, “from an isolated
perspective”, that she fell within section 7 of the Aliens Act, which incorporates article 1A
of the Refugee Convention into Danish law, could Italy serve as the country of first asylum.
The RAB itself also examined her alleged risk of return to Ethiopia rather than Italy. The
State party submits that they are to be removed to Ethiopia and that their claims concerning
Italy are therefore irrelevant and inadmissible as manifestly unfounded under rule 99 (b) of
the Committee’s rules of procedure.
4.4
The State party adds that the author has also failed to substantiate sufficiently her
claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant in relation to her and her son’s removal to
Ethiopia.2
4.5
The State party observes that the author’s claim under article 24 of the Covenant
contains no allegations of violations arising out of treatment that she and her son experienced
in Denmark, or where the Danish authorities are in effective control, or that are due to their
conduct. The Committee does not appear to have ever considered the merits of a
communication regarding the removal of a person who feared a violation of other provisions
than articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant in the receiving State. Further, it follows from General
Comment No. 31 that the obligation under article 2 of the Covenant requiring States parties
to respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and under their
effective control entails an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a
person from their territory where there are sufficient grounds for believing that there is a real
risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant,
whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the
person may subsequently be removed. The removal of a person fearing a violation of his or
her rights under e.g. article 24 of the Covenant by another State party will not cause such
irreparable harm as contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. This claim is therefore
incompatible ratione loci and ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant, and the
Committee lacks jurisdiction over it.3
2
3
The State party notes that it understands the communication as also claiming a breach of article 7 of
the Covenant upon the author’s and her son’s removal to Ethiopia, even if no such claim is made
explicitly.
The State party refers, inter alia, to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in F. v.
United Kingdom (application No. 17341/03), where the Court found inadmissible an application
claiming a violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ground that a
law in Iran, to were the applicant was to be returned, criminalized adult consensual homosexual acts.
The Court stated that compelling considerations arising out of a risk of treatment contrary to articles 2
and 3 of the Convention “do not automatically apply under the other provisions of the Convention.
On a purely pragmatic basis, it cannot be required that an expelling Contracting State only return an
3