CRC/C/86/D/83/2019- advance unedited version
all forms of violence that States parties have an obligation under article 19 of the Convention
to prohibit, prevent and respond to all forms of physical violence against children (paras.
11 and 29), including harmful practices such as female genital mutilation. Also, the
Committee’s general comment No. 6 (para. 27) provides that the Convention is violated only
if the child to be returned will be exposed to a real risk of irreparable harm. In this respect,
the State party argues that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose
of admissibility and to sufficiently substantiate that her daughter will face a real risk of
irreparable harm if returned to Somalia. The State party contends that this part of the
communication should therefore be considered inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
4.3
The State party submits that the Immigration Appeals Board’s decision of 11 March
2019, which confirms the Immigration Service’s decision to revoke the residence permits of
the author’s children, can be appealed to the national courts pursuant to section 63 of the
Danish Constitution. Therefore, all available domestic remedies have not been exhausted
regarding this part of the communication, which should be declared inadmissible pursuant to
article 7(e) of the Optional Protocol.
4.4
Should the Committee find the author’s communication admissible, the State party
considers that the author has not sufficiently established that her daughter would be exposed
to a real risk of irreparable harm upon her return to Somalia. The State party notes that it is
generally for the organs of the States parties to the Convention to review and evaluate facts
and evidence in order to determine whether a risk of a serious violation of the Convention
exists upon return, unless it is found that such evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted
to a denial of justice’.8 The State party considers that, in the present case, the author has failed
to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that have not
been properly taken into account by the Refugee Appeals Board. The State party contends
that the author merely disagrees with the Refugee Appeals Board’s assessment of her
daughter’s circumstances and the available background information.
4.5
The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board took into account the author’s
asylum claims when assessing risk factors for her minor daughter. When assessing an
asylum-seeker’s credibility, the Board makes an overall assessment of, inter alia, his or her
statements and demeanour at the hearing, along with any additional information and
background materials on the country of origin.
4.6
In its decision of 8 March 2019, the Refugee Appeals Board confirmed the decision
of the Danish Immigration Service to reject the asylum application submitted on behalf of
the author’s daughter. The Board noted that the author’s background was undocumented, and
she had knowingly provided incorrect information to the Immigration Service about her
husband. 9 The Board thus considered that the general credibility of the author was
substantially weakened. In particular, the Board found the author’s statements about the
conflict with her uncle and the four-year imprisonment to be highly unlikely and non-credible.
Accordingly, the Board did not accept as a fact the author’s fear that her daughter would be
subjected to female genital mutilation as a result of the author’s alleged conflict with her
uncle. The Board further found that the situation in Ceelbuur from which the author
originated had changed in such a way that her return thereto would not be in breach of article
3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture and ill treatment).
The Board also took into account the author’s statement that her husband had a residence
permit in the United States of America. Finally, the State party argues that the author’s
communication to the Committee does not further elaborate on her background or specify the
basis for her fear concerning female genital mutilation.
4.7
The State party notes that the Refugee Appeals Board emphasized background
information available on the general situation of female genital mutilation in Somalia, in
particular the possibility for mothers to prevent their daughters from being subjected to
8
9
4
The State party cites A.Y. v. Denmark (CRC/ C/78/D/7/2016) and decisions of the European Court of
Human Rights, such as M.E. v. Sweden (application No. 71398/12), R.C. v. Sweden (application No.
41827/07) and X. v. Sweden (application No. 36417/16).
According to the Refugee Appeals Board’s decision of 8 March 2019, the author initially stated that
she had no knowledge about her husband’s whereabouts, but later stated that she had been in contact
with her husband and he had visited her in Denmark.