CCPR/C/119/D/2338/2014
proceedings,13 the Board concluded that the author had failed to meet the conditions for
being granted a residence permit under section 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act.
2.7
The author further argues that no legal review of the Board’s decision is available
and that all domestic remedies have therefore been exhausted.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that his deportation would violate his rights under articles 6 and 7
of the Covenant, as his deportation to Afghanistan would put him at risk of being
persecuted, tortured and even killed, because his conversion to Christianity is considered as
a breach of a fundamental rule of Islam, and apostasy is a crime and punishable by death.
3.2
The author refers to guidelines of the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) of 6 August 2013, 14 according to which the
following groups are in need of international protection in Afghanistan: individuals
associated with or perceived as supportive of the Government and the international
community; men and boys of fighting age; individuals perceived as contravening the
Taliban interpretation of Islamic principles, norms and values; and members of minority
ethnic groups. He explains that due to his travel to Europe, if removed, he would certainly
be perceived as contravening the Islamic rules and being supportive of the Government
and/or the international community, and that this perception would be enhanced by his
conversion to Christianity. He further claims that, given his age, he would also be at risk of
being forced to fight either for the Government or for the Taliban, and alleges that sexual
assaults of young men are commonly reported in Afghanistan. 15 In addition, he claims that
he has no family ties in Afghanistan and that he is a Tajik from Mazar-e-Sharif, and that if
returned, he would be persecuted because he belongs to a minority ethnic group.16
3.3
In addition, the author claims that the rejection by the Refugee Appeals Board of his
asylum application and of a witness ready to testify to support the authenticity of his
conversion to Christianity was in contravention of the State party’s obligations under
articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 17 Regarding article 18 of the Covenant, the author
further alleges that by rejecting his claim, the Board violated his right to change religion.
3.4
The author also submits that, as an asylum seeker, he was not able to appeal the
decision of the Refugee Appeals Board dated 16 January 2014, while any other person in
Denmark can appeal the decisions of administrative bodies such as the Board. He considers
that this situation amounts to a violation of article 26 of the Covenant, discriminating
against asylum seekers in Denmark.
3.5
The author further submits that his conversion to Christianity constitutes a new
ground for asylum and that it should have been reconsidered by the Danish Immigration
Service, and not only decided by the Refugee Appeals Board, which had already refused to
reopen the author’s case based on such new ground in its decision of 30 October 2013.
Therefore, he considers that his right to have a fair hearing has been violated, in breach of
article 14 of the Covenant.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 29 July 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and
merits of the communication. It considers that the communication is not substantiated
because the author has not demonstrated that any breach of the Covenant would result from
his possible deportation to Afghanistan.
13
14
15
16
17
4
See para. 2.3 above.
UNHCR eligibility guidelines for assessing the international protection needs of asylum seekers from
Afghanistan (6 August 2013). Available at www.refworld.org/pdfid/51ffdca34.pdf.
The author does not provide further details on this matter.
The author does not provide further details on this matter.
The author does not provide further details on this matter. See para. 2.5 above and para. 4.7 below.