CAT/C/71/D/792/2016
LGBT Asylum, an organization that defends the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender asylum seekers, and became an active member. On 30 September 2014, the
Danish Refugee Appeals Board upheld the Danish Immigration Service’s rejection of the
complainant’s request for asylum, finding that the complainant’s account of facts was not
credible.
2.9
The Danish Centre against Human Trafficking conducted a new in-depth interview on
29 October 2014, due to a mistake in the English translation of the 7 October 2013 decision
of the Danish Immigration Service. The Danish Centre against Human Trafficking concluded
that there was a suspicion of human trafficking which could not be fully assessed. On 27
November 2014, the Danish Immigration Service recognized the complainant as a victim of
human trafficking.
2.10 On 20 July 2016, the Danish Refugee Council requested the Refugee Appeals Board
to reopen the complainant’s case as she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) and dissociative amnesia and she had been identified as a victim of human
trafficking. On 4 August 2016, the Board reopened the case and accepted the complainant’s
account of the facts but found that the risk of persecution was not sufficient to grant asylum.
On 5 December 2016, it rejected the complainant’s request for asylum.
2.11 As a member of LGBT Asylum, the complainant has given a number of public
statements and participated in pride parades and debates. She has also given anonymous
interviews to the Danish media. On 15 December 2016, an article appeared in an online
Ugandan gossip publication featuring the complainant’s name and photograph. The article
portrayed her as “a top Ugandan lesbian” to be deported from Denmark.
2.12
On 30 May 2017, the Refugee Appeals Board again rejected her request for asylum.
Complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that in Uganda she will be subjected to persecution by the
local population and the Ugandan authorities because of her sexual orientation. She argues
that her previous experience of serious ill-treatment due to her homosexuality, in conjunction
with the general human rights conditions facing homosexuals in Uganda, give rise to a real,
personal and present risk of her being subjected to torture if she were to be deported to
Uganda, in violation of article 3 of the Convention.
3.2
She maintains that her situation is similar to the circumstances in J.K. v. Canada4 as
regards her previous experience of serious ill-treatment on the basis of her sexual orientation,
her profile and activism in organizations advocating the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex persons and the general human rights situation for such persons in
Uganda.
3.3
Concerning her experience of ill-treatment, the complainant refers to the “corrective
rape” she was subjected to and the threats she received from members of her family and the
local community in Uganda because of her sexual orientation. She claims that, prior to fleeing
from Uganda, she had lived in constant fear of being raped and had hidden her sexuality in
order to avoid further ill-treatment. In that regard, the complainant notes, with reference to
the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in X, Y and Z. v. Minister voor
Immigratie en Asiel, 5 that homosexual persons cannot be expected to conceal or exercise
restraint in the expression of their sexual orientation in their country of origin in order to
avoid persecution.
3.4
The complainant submits that, since 2014, she has been advocating the rights of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Denmark, which increases the real
and personal risk of her being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention
if deported.
3.5
She claims that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Uganda, in
particular activists, face a risk of systematic ill-treatment contrary to article 3 of the
4
5
CAT/C/56/D/562/2013.
Judgment, 7 November 2013, paras. 70–71.
3