CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012
1.1
The author of the communication is J.D., a Chinese national born in 1971. At the
time of submission of the communication, she was awaiting deportation to China, following
the rejection of her application for asylum in Denmark. At that time, the author claimed that
by forcibly deporting her to China, Denmark would violate her rights under articles 2, 6, 7,
14, 18, 26 and 27 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State
party on 23 March 1976. The author is represented by counsel.
1.2
On 19 November 2012, pursuant to rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure,
the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim
measures, requested the State party to refrain from expelling the author to China while her
case was under consideration by the Committee.
1.3
On 25 January 2013, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new
communications and interim measures, acceded to the State party’s request to lift interim
measures.1 The author was deported to China on 23 October 2013.
The facts as presented by the author
2.1
The author was arrested and detained several times in China for being a member of
the Falun Gong faith. She was detained for the first time in 1999 for two weeks and again
from 2000 until 2002 and from 2003 until 2005 in a women’s prison. She was then
transferred to a psychiatric hospital, where she was put under forced medication until 2007.
During her detention periods, she was subjected to “physical outrages”. Because of the
constant persecution which led to the various episodes of detention, the author decided to
stop practising her religion in public as of 2007; since then she continued to practice her
religion alone at home. The author left China in August 2010 with the help of a third person,
Y.B. She first arrived in the Netherlands and entered Denmark in March or April 2011,
where she was apprehended by the Danish police in November 2011. The Copenhagen
police filed a report on 17 November 2011, which is when the author officially claimed
asylum in Denmark.
2.2
On 30 April 2012, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the author’s asylum
application under paragraph 7 of the Aliens Act. The Refugee Appeals Board upheld the
decision of the Immigration Service on 15 August 2012. The Board ordered the author to
leave the country within seven days, in accordance with section 33 (1) and (2), of the
Aliens Act. By letter dated 23 October 2012, the author through her counsel, requested a
reconsideration of her asylum application on the basis of the Board’s recent jurisprudence,
in which it had reopened the case of two asylum seekers who feared religious persecution in
Afghanistan further to a letter from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees of 1 May 2012, in which it stated, inter alia, that “the right to freedom of
religion is a fundamental human right and one’s religious belief, identity or way of life can
be seen as so fundamental to human identity that one should not be compelled to hide,
change or renounce this in order to avoid persecution.”
2.3
On 16 November 2012, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the author’s
asylum proceedings and confirmed its earlier decision of 15 August 2012. Pursuant to
section 56 (8) of the Aliens Act, decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are final.
1
2
Counsel’s request of 27 February 2013 to reinstate interim measures or at least to request the State
party not to place the author, who is a victim of torture, into immigration detention was denied by the
Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures on 12 March 2013; counsel’s
repeated requests of 13 September 2013 and 30 September 2013 to reinstate interim measures were
denied on 30 September 2013; counsel’s new request of 21 October 2013 to reinstate interim
measures was denied on 22 October 2013.