CCPR/C/119/D/2473/2014
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
Between 2007 and 2008, the author worked as a teacher at a university in Gaza. On
30 June 2008, he was fired by Hamas-affiliated staff allegedly for instructing students who
had problems with Hamas. The author himself has never had political affiliations, but was a
sympathizer of Fatah. In 2010, he received a summons to present himself at the Security
Service Section of the city in which he lived. He did not go and left his home for a few days.
After returning, he was attacked by Hamas and had to be hospitalized for head trauma.
From the hospital, he was taken by Hamas to a prison and kept there for two weeks, during
which time he was tortured by being beaten, hung up and hit on his feet. He was released
on condition that he would cooperate and deliver information about Fatah. Approximately
one month later, the author travelled to Egypt with the help of a smuggler. Some two
months later, he returned home, again with the help of a smuggler. In December 2011, he
travelled to Egypt and on 10 December 2011, while still in the country, he married a Danish
citizen of Palestinian origin. In February 2012, he travelled once again to Gaza in order to
arrange a visa for Denmark. On 25 April 2012, he arrived in Denmark. On 2 October 2012,
he was granted a residence permit on the grounds of family reunification. On 4 January
2013, the author and his wife separated. On 25 January 2013, he applied for asylum. On 4
March 2013, his residence permit was revoked.
2.2
The reasons for asylum invoked by the author were his fear of detention and torture
by Hamas because he fled and failed to provide them with information, as agreed to upon
his release from detention, and his fear of being killed by his wife’s family, who have highranking positions in Hamas, owing to a conflict with his father-in-law. On 6 December
2013, the Danish Immigration Service rejected his asylum application. On 19 June 2014,
the Danish Refugee Appeals Board confirmed the decision of the Danish Immigration
Service, having found that the facts of his story lacked consistency and credibility. The
Board specified, among other reasons, that the author had not been in conflict with Hamas
in the two years following his dismissal, although he alleged that Hamas was looking for
him because of the advice he was providing to students; the author had travelled repeatedly
in and out of Gaza; that the information on abuse during his detention cannot in itself
justify granting asylum; and that the claims about attacks by his wife’s family are not
credible. The Board came to the conclusion that the author had not established that he
would be at risk of personal persecution or inhuman treatment or punishment, which would
justify granting him a residence permit.
2.3
During the appeals process, the author claimed that the human rights situation in
Gaza justified, in itself, international protection. However, the Board found it unnecessary,
in view of the facts of the case, to adopt a general position on the situation in Gaza.
2.4
The author claims to have exhausted all available domestic remedies since the
decisions of the Board cannot be challenged in domestic courts.
The complaint
3.
The author alleges that if he were to return to Gaza, he would face the risk of assault
by Hamas and a threat to his life from his wife’s family in violation of articles 7 and 9 of
the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In a note verbale dated 29 April 2014, the State party submitted its observations on
the admissibility and merits of the communication. In its observations the State party claims
that the communication should be considered inadmissible as the author has failed to
establish a prima facie case under articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant. He has not provided
substantial grounds to demonstrate that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture
or other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he returned to
Gaza. The author has failed to establish in any way how he is at risk of treatment in
violation of article 9 of the Covenant.
4.2
The State party alleges that, should the communication be considered admissible, the
facts as presented by the author do not reveal a violation of articles 7 and 9 of the Covenant.
The State party cites the jurisprudence of the Committee according to which the risk of
2