CAT/C/71/D/792/2016
case has been examined by two instances, including three times by the Refugee Appeals
Board at oral hearings before three different panels. During the procedure before the Board,
the complainant could present her views, in writing and orally, assisted by counsel.
4.6
The State party adds that the Refugee Appeals Board conducted a comprehensive and
thorough examination of the complainant’s statements and of all other information available
on the case, including the complainant’s communication to the Committee, and that the
Board’s assessments are clearly and thoroughly justified and substantiated by background
material from reliable and objective sources. The State party notes that the medical records
produced on the complainant’s mental health were taken into account by the Board. As a
result, the Board did not accord any value to inconsistencies and unlikely elements in the
complainant’s statements. On the contrary, in its decisions of 5 December 2016 and 30 May
2017, the Board essentially accepted the complainant’s account regarding the grounds for
seeking asylum. The State party considers that the complainant fails to identify any
irregularity in the Board’s decision-making. The State party concludes that the complainant’s
communication to the Committee merely reflects her disagreement with the assessment of
her specific circumstances and of the background information by the Board in an attempt to
use the Committee as an appellate body.
4.7
The State also submits that the account of the facts given by the complainant to the
Committee “paints a different picture” compared to the statements she made at two
interviews by the Danish Immigration Service, on 7 November 2013 and 24 March 2014, and
at three oral hearings before the Refugee Appeals Board, on 30 September 2014, 5 December
2016 and 17 May 2017.
4.8
As regards her stay in town Z, during the asylum proceedings the complainant stated
that she and B. were afraid of being reported to the authorities, were occasionally asked by
men whose advances they had turned down if they were lesbians, were suspected and spoken
ill of by people in the village. However, the description given by the complainant of the way
in which she and B. were approached by men in no way resembles the information she
submitted to the Committee. At no point did she mention to the Danish authorities, as she did
to the Committee, that she had feared being outed as a lesbian and being raped or that she
only left her home when necessary and, when at home, locked the doors to prevent being
attacked in her home.
4.9
During the asylum proceedings, the complainant reported that, other than advances
made by men, she experienced no problems in town Z. She provided no information about
any actual gossip or any other kinds of problems caused by her lifestyle. When asked whether
she had been subjected to physical abuse in town Z, she responded in the negative. The State
party further observes that her statements in her communication to the Committee about the
risks she faced because of going to bars frequented by other homosexuals and coming back
home with other women differ from the statements she made to the Danish immigration
authorities. When asked whether any problems had arisen because she had frequented
homosexual bars, she replied in the negative and stated that, even if people were not open
about their homosexuality, they knew who was homosexual. The State party stresses that the
complainant and B. indisputably managed to live together in town Z for nine years, that those
around them knew they were living together and that they were not subjected to abuse or the
like at any point during this long period.
4.10 Furthermore, the State party contests the statements given by the complainant to the
Committee according to which she had fled Uganda for Denmark because she was not free
to live as a homosexual and feared being raped and imprisoned. The State party refers to the
complainant’s statements before the Refugee Appeals Board according to which she had
never attempted to leave Uganda before meeting A. and that their departure was A.’s
initiative. The complainant stated that she and A. had been together for a month before
deciding to leave and that they had talked about the journey as lovers. When asked why she
had travelled to Denmark, the complainant replied that A. had shown her love. When asked
whether the reason for her departure with A. was that people in the village had spoken ill of
her, the complainant replied that she had not wanted to go to prison, that their love had been
strong and that they had been harassed.
5