CCPR/C/119/D/2473/2014
being subjected to torture or ill-treatment must be personal and the author must provide
substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 1
4.3
The State party provided a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the
Aliens Act and decision-making processes and functioning of the Board.2 It notes that in the
present case, the Board concluded that the author’s statements about his conflict with
Hamas during his employment at the university were fabricated, together with his
allegations about the conflict with his wife’s family. The State party observes that the
author’s statements on several crucial points were inconsistent, vague, incoherent
improbable and constantly being elaborated. The State party claims that the author appears
to be a very low-profile individual, that neither he nor his family have ever been involved in
any political activities, and that he has failed to give a coherent and logical account of why
he was allegedly persecuted by Hamas. The State party also observes that the author has not
provided any credible reasons for his conflict with his wife’s family.
4.4
The State party submits that the author has failed to specify why the general
conditions in Gaza are such that article 7 of the Covenant would be violated if he were to be
returned. He also failed to refer to any specific background information. The State party
refutes the author’s allegation that the Board refused to review the situation in Gaza. It also
submits that the Board has a comprehensive collection of general background material on
the situation in the countries of origin of asylum seekers, which is continually updated.
Having analysed the situation in Gaza, the State party agrees with the conclusion of the
Board, namely that such a situation on its own cannot justify granting a residence permit. 3
4.5
The State party observes that the author has not provided any explanation of why his
return would constitute a violation of article 9 of the Covenant.
4.6
The State party further submits that the author has failed to provide any new,
specific details about his situation to the Committee and that his communication merely
reflects his disagreement with the assessment of his credibility by the Board. He has failed
to identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the Board
has failed to take properly into account. The State party concludes that the author is in fact
trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of his
claim reassessed.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations
5.1
On 27 August 2015, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s
observations.
5.2
The author argues that he has established a prima facie case under articles 7 and 9 of
the Covenant on account of his fear of persecution by Hamas, on the one hand, owing to his
previous persecution and imprisonment and, on the other hand, owing to his conflict with
his father-in-law, who has relatives occupying high-ranking positions in Hamas. He also
reiterates his claim regarding the failure of the State party to assess the general situation in
Gaza, which has severely deteriorated since his arrival in Denmark.
State party’s additional observations
6.
On 1 September 2015, with reference to its observations of 29 April 2014, the State
party indicated that it had no additional observations.
1
2
3
The State party cites the views of the Committee as expressed in para. 5.4 of the decision concerning
communication No. 1302/2004, Dawood Khan v. Canada, adopted on 25 July 2006.
See communication No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, paras.
4.8-4.11.
The State party refers to Thematic Memorandum Palestine: The Gaza Strip after the War from 7 July
to 26 August 2014 (Oslo, Landinfo, 2014) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, report entitled “Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(OPTs) — country of concern: latest update, 30 September 2014”, a report published on 16 October
2014.
3