CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016
to a violation by Denmark of their rights under articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. He has
requested that interim measures be issued to prevent their deportation to China. The
Optional Protocol entered into force for Denmark on 23 March 1976. The author is
represented by counsel.
1.2
On 21 March 2016, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, the Committee,
acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures,
requested the State party to refrain from returning the author and his minor son to China
while their case was under consideration by the Committee. On 4 April 2016, the Refugee
Appeals Board suspended the time limit for the departure of the author and his minor son
from Denmark until further notice, in accordance with the Committee’s request. On 21
September 2016, the State party requested that the interim measures be lifted, as the author
had failed to render it probable that he and his son would be at risk of suffering irreparable
damage if returned to China. On 13 March 2017, the Committee decided to deny the
request to lift the interim measures.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author and his minor son arrived in Denmark on 18 December 2012 with a valid
national passport and a valid visa. On 20 December 2012, the author applied for asylum for
him and his son, who is on the autism spectrum.
2.2
In his asylum application, the author claimed that he had worked secretly for many
years in support of the democracy movement in China. In 1989, he had organized and
participated in major student demonstrations in the city of Guangzhou. As a consequence,
he had received a warning from the authorities as a punishment and had been deprived of
some privileges in his subsequent studies and work. From 1998 until his departure, he had
been an active member of a pro-democracy movement, the purpose of which had been to
overthrow the Communist Party’s rule and establish a multiparty democracy in China.
2.3
Since the author’s father had refused to become a member of the Communist party,
the family was internally displaced. The author’s sisters both obtained asylum status in
Denmark after participating in the student protests in 1989 and, in the case of the youngest
sister, after being exposed to torture.
2.4
In 1998, while employed as an auditor in a company dealing with the import and
export of steel and metal (Shenzhen branch of Guangxi Metals and Minerals), the author
accepted an invitation from a colleague, Mr. Wang, a founder of the Patriotic Democratic
Movement of China, to support the democracy movement. From 1998 to 2000, the author
and Mr. Wang transferred HKD 4.3 million in foreign donations to the pro-democracy
movement in China by charging artificially increased prices at the company. The Chinese
authorities arrested the author on suspicion of taking bribes in exchange for overcharging
customers, and the author was consequently imprisoned and exposed to torture for 6
months in 2001. The torture consisted of beatings with batons and the deprivation of food
and sleep. As a result of the torture, the author contracted hepatitis B and tinnitus; his
memory is impaired and he suffers from pains, anxiety and sleeping problems. In August
2001, the author and another suspect were released for lack of evidence. The Chinese
authorities never discovered that the money had been transferred to the pro-democracy
movement.
2.5
In spite of his weakened physical condition and the fact that his sisters often urged
him to flee to the United States of America or Europe, the author wished to stay in China.
After his release, he continued his work in the democracy movement, this time by
recruiting new members. He carried out those activities as part of his strong affiliation with
the Meixin Christian Church, of which Mr. Wang was also a member. One of the religious
study groups at the Church served as a disguise for political work. Even though the
authorities monitored and disturbed the religious services, the political work was not
discovered. Then, in July 2012, the author was told that Mr. Zhang, the leader of Mr. Wang,
had been arrested in Shanghai, where the democracy movement had gathered. The author
was warned that Mr. Zhang could under torture disclose his identity and that of other
members. Furthermore, the anti-corruption department was expected to intensify its work in
the local area, which could risk the disclosure of the money transfers for the movement
2