CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014
application for asylum processed in Denmark for humanitarian reasons, in particular
because of the age of the author’s youngest child.
2.10 On 12 March 2014, the Danish Immigration Service (Udlændingestyrelsen) rejected
the author’s asylum application. Although it recognized that the author was to be regarded
as a person in need of protection under section 7.1 of the country’s Aliens Act, it deemed
that Italy should serve as the author’s first country of asylum, as provided in section 7.3 of
the Aliens Act, of Denmark.
2.11 On 14 August 2014, the Refugees Appeals Board rejected the author’s application.
The Board determined that Italy constituted the author’s first country of asylum, in the
following manner: “The majority notices that there is newer disturbing background
information regarding the current conditions in Italy but — after a complete assessment —
does not find that it can be established that Italy cannot and will not make sure that the
applicant achieves adequate economic and social conditions including the necessary
medical help.”
2.12 The author was interviewed by the police on 15 December 2014 with respect to her
deportation. She therefore expected her deportation to Italy to be imminent when she
submitted her communication to the Committee.
The complaint
3.
The author submits that by forcibly returning her and her two children to Italy, the
State party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 3 She states that her
family unit is particularly vulnerable, and runs a real risk of facing inhuman and degrading
treatment upon return to Italy. On the basis of her prior experience in Italy, and the general
information available, the author claims that she and her children face a real risk of facing
homelessness and destitution, with limited access to the necessary medical care.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 17 October 2014, the State party submitted that the communication was
inadmissible, or, alternatively, without merit. The State party first describes the structure,
composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board, as well as the legislation
applying to cases related to the Dublin II Regulation. 4
4.2
As to the admissibility and merits of the communication, the State party argues that
the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of her
communication under article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, it has not been established
that there are substantial grounds for believing that she will be in danger of being subjected
to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Italy. The
communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. In
the alternative, the State party submits that that the author has not sufficiently established
that article 7 will be violated in case of her and her two children’s return to Italy. It follows
from the Committee’s jurisprudence that States parties are under an obligation not to
extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the
necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of
irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the
country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may
subsequently be removed. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal,
and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real
risk of irreparable harm exists.5
3
4
5
The author cites the European Court of Human Rights cases of M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece,
application No. 30696/09, judgment of 21 January 2011, and Samsam Mohammad Hussein and others
v. the Netherlands and Italy, application No. 27725/10, decision of 2 April 2013.
See communications No. 2379/2014, Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016,
paras. 4.1-4.3, or No. 2608/2015, R.A.A. and Z.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 28 October 2016,
para. 4.1.
The State party refers to communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March
2014, para. 9.2.
3