CEDAW/C/38/D/10/2005
2.11 The author filed for “discretionary leave” or “temporary protection” to remain in
the United Kingdom on humanitarian grounds with the Home Office on 4 January
2005.
2.12 On 1 February 2005, the Immigration and Nationality Directorate wrote to the
author informing her that she had no further right of appeal and that the decision
on her earlier claim would not be reversed. She was reminded that she had no
basis to stay in the United Kingdom and should make arrangements to leave the
United Kingdom without delay. She was apprised of where to call for help and
advice on returning home.
2.13 On 29 September 2005, the author made an application to the European Court of
Human Rights alleging a violation by the United Kingdom of her rights under
article 3 (prohibition of torture) and article 8 (right to respect for private and
family life). On 24 November 2005, the European Court of Human Rights, sitting
as a Committee of three judges, declared the communication inadmissible on the
basis that it “did not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols”.
2.14 On 8 May 2006, the Home Office refused her request for discretionary leave on
humanitarian grounds. The decision indicated that the author had no basis to stay
in the United Kingdom and should make arrangement to leave the country without
delay. If she failed to do so, the Home Department would take steps to ensure her
removal to Pakistan. No deadline was given.
The complaint
3.1 The author claims that she came to the United Kingdom to save her life and her
children’s future and education. She alleges that as a single woman with two children,
she would not be safe outside of the United Kingdom. She claims that if she is deported
back to Pakistan, she will no longer be protected and will be killed by her ex-husband
and her children’s future and education will be put at risk. She therefore asks that she
and her two children be allowed to live in the United Kingdom and be granted
temporary protection. The author makes it clear that if she is deported, she will leave
her children behind.
3.2 She also alleges that both the asylum and human rights based procedures were not fair.
The State party’s observations on admissibility
4.1 By its submission of 5 May 2006, the State party challenges the admissibility of the
communication, arguing that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies, that the same
matter has been examined by the European Court of Human Rights, and that the
communication was not sufficiently substantiated and/or manifestly ill-founded.
4
07-37948