CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013
the Board dismissed the author’s appeal. The Board stated that his statements did not
appear credible and that there were inconsistencies regarding important facts related to the
alleged events, such as the manner in which the driver assaulted his colleague, who was
seated in the front of the taxi; the fact that it took a year and seven months for the Taliban
to find him at his house; the fact that the Taliban members stayed in front of his house for
several minutes, allowing the police sufficient time to respond to his call; and his claim that
he and his family were safe by moving to another house only one mile away, and that they
only moved 10 to 15 days after the Taliban visited his house. It was also noted that his
health condition could not justify his residence in the State party’s territory under section 7
of the Aliens Act and that the Board had no competence to grant a residence permit under
provisions that were not in that section. Requests for residence under other grounds had to
be filed before the Danish Immigration Service and the Ministry of Justice.
2.7
On 4 December 2012, the author requested the Board to reopen his asylum case. He
claimed that the Board’s decision of 21 November 2012 was based on a linguistic
misunderstanding that led to differences in the description of the manner in which the taxi
driver attacked the author’s colleague. He stated that the term “halal” could be used to
describe a range of situations, from the throat being cut to the head being cut off. On 8
April 2013, the author��s counsel asked the Board for an early decision in the matter. 5
2.8
On 12 April 2013, the Board held that there was no significant new information in
the author’s request. The Board therefore reiterated its previous reasoning, further asserting
that the author had been advised during the proceedings that his statements were
inconsistent but did not provide sufficient clarity to reverse the finding.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that the State party’s denial of refugee status and his deportation,
having regard to the circumstances surrounding his situation in Afghanistan prior to his
departure, in particular the fact that he was stabbed by members of the Taliban and was
sought out by them at his home after he was stabbed, constitutes a violation of articles 6
and 7 of the Covenant.
3.2
The author asserts that the Danish authorities did not adequately assess the risk he
would be subjected to if he were to be returned to Afghanistan. The Taliban operates in the
whole country and he claims that he may be subjected to persecution due to his previous
job with the road construction department of the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and
Development and the fact that he can identify the taxi driver who assaulted him and his
colleagues on 19 August 2009.
3.3
The author also argues that his rights under article 14 have been violated, as he was
not afforded the opportunity to appeal the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision before a court
of law.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 15 October 2013, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and merits of the author’s communication.
4.2 The State party submits that the author’s communication should be declared
inadmissible on the grounds that the provisions of the Covenant were not breached when
the author was returned to Afghanistan.
4.3
The State party refers to statements made by the author at different stages of the
asylum proceedings: in his asylum application form, in his interview with the Danish
Immigration Service on 21 November 2011, in a brief from the author’s counsel, of 7
November 2012, and at a hearing before the Refugee Appeals Board, on 21 November
2012.
5
In order to be able to submit a petition to the Committee before his deportation, which had already
been scheduled for 15 April 2013.
3