CEDAW/C/71/D/81/2015
Thereafter, the author always provided information about the rebels ’ visits to her
neighbours.
2.6 In April 2013, the author remarried and the authorities did not summon or visit
her again until September, when officials appeared at her house asking for food. The
next day, when her husband was at the market, the officials went to the author ’s house
and asked for her husband. They went to the market and arrested him. He was detained
for a couple of days and tortured, forcing him to cooperate with the authorities.
Thereafter, the author, who was pregnant, fled the country.
2.7 The author has one daughter with her first husband and one son with her second
husband. Her son was born in Denmark and currently lives with her. After she
remarried, she left her daughter with her first husband ’s family, as is the custom in
Chechnya, according to the author. At the time of submission of the communication,
she had no contact with her second husband, but she believed that he had divorced
her, given her absence.
2.8 The author states that she did not tell the Danish Immigration Service that she
had been raped because she was ashamed, as victims of rape are stigmatized in
Chechnya. She mentioned it only at the appeal stage, before the Refugee Appeals
Board.
Complaint
3.1 The author claims that her deportation to the Russian Federation would amount
to a violation by Denmark of her rights under articles 5 (a) and 16 (1) (d) of the
Convention because the family of her second husband would take her son away from
her, in accordance with the custom in Chechnya whereby, in case of divorce, the
children stay with the husband’s family. 2
3.2 She also claims that her deportation would amount to a violation by Denmark
of articles 2 (d) and (f) and 5 (a) because, if she were deported to the Russian
Federation, she would be in danger of being subjected to rape and other types of abuse
and discrimination by the Chechen and Russian authorities and her family would
probably not protect her because of the shame that she had brought by being raped.
3.3 She claims that her deportation would also amount to a violation of article 2 (e),
as she would be at risk of reprisals from the rebels because she acted as an informer.
In that connection, she refers to the Committee’s general recommendation No. 19
(1992) on violence against women to support her claim.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1 By a note verbale dated 3 August 2015, the State party submitted its
observations on admissibility and the merits and requested the Committee to lift its
request for interim measures of protection. The State party submits that the
communication should be considered inadmissible under article 4 (2) (c) of the
Optional Protocol, as the author has failed to establish a prima facie case and the case
is thus manifestly ill-founded. Should the communication be declared admissible, the
State party submits that the author has not established that there are substantial
grounds to believe that her return to the Russian Federation would constitute a
violation of the Convention.
4.2 The State party recalls the facts of the case and provides information on the
composition, independence and prerogatives of the Refugee Appeals Board and the
__________________
2
18-20327
In support of this claim, the author submitted a report by the European Asylum Support Office:
EASO Country of Origin Report: Chechnya — Women, Marriage, Divorce and Child Custody
(September 2014).
3/10