CCPR/C/129/D/2970/2017
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and her life would be in danger if she were
returned to Mauritania. In particular, the Canadian authorities argued that she had not
satisfactorily shown that her husband belonged to a slave caste or that she had problems with
her family because she had married outside her caste. In March 2017, the author filed an
application for leave and judicial review of the decision to deny her request for a pre-removal
risk assessment. This application was dismissed by the Federal Court on 2 June 2017.
2.7
On 15 March 2017, a request to stay the deportation of the author was denied by the
Canada Border Services Agency. The author argued that her son was at risk of persecution
and discrimination because, under Mauritanian law, he would not be able to apply for
Mauritanian citizenship until he was 17 years old. The Agency replied that “the option of
leaving the child in Canada with his aunt, whom he has known his entire life, was perfectly
feasible”. In addition, the Agency noted that, as a refugee in the United States, the author’s
husband was in a position to sponsor them, meaning that “she would be separated from her
son for a short period of time only”, which, according to the Agency, was “not ideal, but
could be done”.
2.8
On 22 March 2017, the author submitted a request for a stay of deportation. She was
heard in the Federal Court of Canada on 28 March, and her request was denied the following
day.
2.9
The author asserts that she has exhausted all domestic remedies.
The complaint
3.1
The author alleges a violation of article 2 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with
article 6, because the State party did not conduct a serious assessment of the risk of death she
would face if she were returned to Mauritania. In her view, all the evidence she submitted
after the decision issued on 10 June 2014 by the Refugee Protection Division was rejected
for no valid legal reason. The author argues that she did not submit this evidence earlier
because it was not available. She maintains that there is therefore no effective remedy that
would allow her to present new evidence for her case.
3.2
The author submits, moreover, that her rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant
would be violated if she were deported to Mauritania. She asserts that she is at substantial
risk of death, sexual, psychological and physical abuse and persecution at the hands of
members of her family, including her brothers, who are of the view that her marriage to a
lower-caste man is a serious honour crime, and at the hands of Mauritanian society, which is
highly critical of inter-caste marriage. The author maintains that her son is also at risk and
that, as he is not a Mauritanian citizen, he would be considered an outcast in Mauritania. As
the author has been disowned by her family, her son would not be allowed to live on
Mauritanian soil. As a result, he would lack access to health services, even though he is
asthmatic, and could be enslaved by a rich family. The author contends that there are no
means of protection for her and her son in Mauritania. In addition, she argues that there are
widespread and systematic rights violations in Mauritania, 2 particularly violations of
women’s rights.
State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 29 September 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and the merits of the communication. On the same date, it asked the Committee to lift the
request for interim measures it had made on the author’s behalf. The State party is of the view
that the communication should be declared inadmissible for the following reasons: (a) the
author’s claims concerning the violation of article 2 of the Covenant are insufficiently
substantiated and are incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant; (b) the author has
not sufficiently substantiated her claims in relation to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, nor
the assertion that her removal to Mauritania would cause irreparable harm; and (c) the
author’s son, who is a Canadian citizen, is not subject to a deportation order.
2
GE.21-00740
See, inter alia, Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2014 – Mauritania, Refworld, 21 August 2014,
available at www.refworld.org/docid/53fae99c8.html.
3