CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013
1.1
The authors of the communication are A and B, born in 1935 and 1945, respectively.
They are nationals of Pakistan and currently reside in Denmark. Following the rejection of
their application for refugee status in Denmark, they are subject to removal. They assert
that, by removing them to Pakistan, the State party would violate their rights under articles
7, 14 and 18 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Denmark on
23 March 1976.
1.2
On 23 October 2013, pursuant to rules 92 and 97 of its rules of procedure, the
Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, requested that the State party not remove the authors to Pakistan while the
communication was under consideration by the Committee. On 24 September 2014 and
18 September 2015, the Committee denied the State party’s requests to lift interim
measures. The authors remained in Denmark.
Facts as presented by the authors
2.1
The authors, who are married to each other, assert that they fled Pakistan on account
of their faith as Ahmadi (Ahmadiyya) Muslims.1 Certain individuals threatened to kill them
if they did not leave their country or abandon their faith. A mark was put on their front door
and they received oral threats. They feared the Muslim fundamentalist groups Ahle Suntal
and Ahle Hadees, which conduct “targeted killings”.
2.2
Ahmadis in Pakistan face various forms of discrimination. For example, they are not
permitted to work with other Ahmadis or be buried after death. Ahmadis also risk being
subjected to violence. Imams vandalized an Ahmadi graveyard in Lahore and “target
killings” of Ahmadis by fundamentalist Muslim groups are known to occur in Pakistan. In
separate incidents, a young Ahmadi man and his brother were both killed while on their
way to the mosque. In addition, three days after an Ahmadi couple married, the bride’s
husband, father and father-in-law were all killed due to their faith. Because “the situation
was getting worse”, the authors decided to leave Pakistan in 2012.2
2.3
The authors entered Denmark on a family visit visa, as one of their sons resides
there. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors’ asylum application
was denied and, on 19 August 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board denied their appeal of that
decision. Danish law does not currently permit permanent residence on the basis of family
reunification.
The complaint
3.1
The authors assert that Denmark would violate their rights under article 7 of the
Covenant by forcibly returning them to Pakistan, where they would be persecuted because
1
2
2
On his asylum application, the male author stated that there had been two to three incidents against
them, in Hafizabad, Dunyapur and then Multan. The female author’s application did not mention
those incidents and neither author mentioned them during their interviews with the Danish
Immigration Service or at the hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, although the authors were
asked whether any further incidents against them had taken place. The incidents were mentioned in
the communication; no further details were provided.
The communication does not provide further details on the assertions in this paragraph. During his
interview with the Danish Immigration Service, the male author stated that his son living in Denmark
had sent them an invitation in September 2012 because he wanted to show his parents where he lived.
When asked if it was then correct that the authors had begun to plan their departure before receiving
threatening letters, the male author stated that he did not know because it was his wife who had been
planning their departure.