CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that by deporting her to China, where she is not authorized to
practice her religion freely and publicly, and where such practice entails persecution,
imprisonment and torture, 2 Denmark would violate her rights under articles 2, 6, 7, 18, 26
and 27 of the Covenant.
3.2
The author notes that, in the opinion of the Refugee Appeals Board, the fact that she
decided not to practise her religion in public after several periods of detention owing to her
religious beliefs, is the evidence that she is no longer at risk. The author considers on the
contrary that, if she started to manifest her religion again with other members of Falun
Gong, she would be persecuted, which is the case with other Falun Gong members in China,
if they choose to practise their religion in public. In violation of article 18 of the Covenant,
the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board therefore sets a precondition that the author
renounces ad vitam the practice of her religion upon her return to China. 3
3.3
The author further argues that the current Danish asylum procedure is contrary to
article 14 of the Covenant, as asylum seekers cannot appeal the Refugee Appeal Board’s
decisions to a higher judicial instance. 4 For her, this also raises the question of
discrimination, since under the State party’s law, decisions of a great number of
administrative boards, which have the same composition as the Refugee Appeals Board,
can be invoked in front of the ordinary courts.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 21 January 2013, the State party recalls the facts on which the present
communication is based and the author’s claims, and submits that the communication
should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee declare the communication
admissible, the State party submits that no violation of the provisions of the Covenant will
occur if the author is deported to China.
4.2
The State party submits that the Refugee Appeals Board accepted as facts the
author’s statements regarding her detention by the Chinese police owing to her practice of
Falun Gong, but could not accept her statement of being wanted by the Chinese authorities
at the time of her departure. The Board found that the author had made inconsistent and
embellished statements about crucial parts of her motives for seeking asylum, including her
departure and the reason for it. The Board emphasized that until her interview with the
Danish Immigration Service on 29 March 2012, the author had not mentioned that she was
allegedly wanted by the Chinese authorities at the time of her departure, whereas she had
given no specific reason for her departure in previous interviews with the police on 17
November 2011, with the Danish Centre against Human Trafficking on 18 November 2011,
with the police on 28 November 2011 and in her asylum application form of 29 November
2011. During the interview with the Danish Immigration Service, the author had stated that
her mother feared for her and that the author subsequently came into contact with Y.B.,
who helped her with her departure, whereas she had stated to the Refugee Appeals Board
2
3
4
The author refers to the concluding observations of the Committee against Torture
(CAT/C/CHN/CO/4), para. 25.
The author refers to UNHCR Guidelines on international protection: religion-based refugee claims
under article 1 A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of
Refugees; a UNHCR statement of 17 June 2011 on religious persecution and the interpretation of
article 9 (1) of the European Union qualification directive (directive 2004/83/EC); and the judgment
of the European Court of Justice in the joined cases C-71/11 and C-99/11, Federal Republic of
Germany v. Y and Z, which concerns the interpretation of the European Union qualification directive.
The author refers to the concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD/C/DEN/CO/17), para. 13.
3