CAT/C/64/D/693/2015
2.6
The complainant claims that there was a terrible incident with a bomb blast near a
petrol station in Gardez, as a result of which two persons were killed and the complainant
suffered a burn to his arm. 6 The complainant believes that this incident was targeted at him
and masterminded by S.’s associates. In January 2015, the complainant fled to the Islamic
Republic of Iran and from there to Europe. In April–May 2015, he arrived in Sweden where
he filed an application for asylum. On 17 June 2015, the complainant was transferred from
Sweden to Denmark under the so-called Dublin Regulation.7
2.7
On 15 July 2015, the complainant’s counsel requested the Danish Refugee Appeals
Board to reopen the case on the grounds of the failure of the authorities to undertake a
medical examination of the complainant’s burn scar on his hand. On 29 July 2015, the
Board refused to reopen the asylum proceedings due to a lack of substantial new
information or views in the case beyond the information available at the initial hearing by
the Board. It also observed that it would not request an examination for signs of torture,
since it could not accept the complainant’s account as fact.
2.8
On 17 August 2015, the Board decided to reopen the case with a view to
reconsidering the credibility of the complainant’s statement in the light of the results of the
medical examination. In that context, the Board referred to the report of 2 August 2013
from the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group on an examination of the
complainant for signs of torture.8 According to that medical report, the physical findings on
the complainant corresponded to the complainant’s statement of past ill-treatment.
2.9
On 17 September 2015, the Board upheld the decision of the Danish Immigration
Service not to grant refugee status to the complainant. The majority of the Board found that
the complainant had made numerous inconsistent and not credible statements with regard to
his escape from S.’s associates in 2008, the reasons for his return to Afghanistan and his
marriage in 2014. The Board also noted that the contents of the certificate of nationality
presented by the complainant in the initial asylum proceedings — including the
complainant’s date of birth and the spelling of his own and his father’s and paternal
grandfather’s names — did not correspond to the contents of the document presented by the
complainant after his re-entry into Denmark, and therefore concluded that at least one of
those documents had been obtained illegally for the occasion. The majority of the Board
found that that circumstance had contributed to weakening the complainant’s credibility. It
also noted that, even if all the documents were genuine, and even if the complainant had
been to Afghanistan after his departure from Denmark, he had failed to present evidence
that rendered it probable that he had been persecuted there. The Board concluded that there
was therefore no basis for adjourning the case and instituting an examination for signs of
torture.
2.10 On 8 and 22 October 2015, the District Court of Hillerød extended the detention
period of the complainant prior to his removal. 9 The complainant appealed against that
order to the High Court of Eastern Denmark, submitting that his continued deprivation of
liberty as a torture victim would be disproportionate and, therefore, he should be released.
On 4 November 2015, the High Court upheld the earlier decision. On 12 November 2015,
the complainant sought authorization from the Appeals Permission Board to appeal to the
Supreme Court, but that request was rejected on 4 February 2016. On 15 December 2015,
the complainant was returned to Afghanistan.
2.11
6
7
8
9
The complainant indicates that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies.
He already had the scars on his arm allegedly caused by the assault he suffered in 2008.
Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013
establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining
an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country
national or a stateless person.
The examination was arranged by the Danish Refugee Council following the Board’s decision to
reject the complainant’s asylum application in July 2012.
The removal could not take place on 20 October as planned because the complainant physically
obstructed attempts to get him to board the plane.
3