Z v. Denmark

The author of the communication is Z, an Afghan citizen born on 1 May 1961. He claims that his deportation to Afghanistan would constitute a violation by Denmark of his rights under articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant. The author is represented by counsel.

On 4 September 2015, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided not to issue a request for interim measures under rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure and determined that no observations from the State party were needed to ascertain the admissibility of the present communication.

The author applied for asylum in Denmark on 12 April 2012.⁴ The Danish Immigration Service rejected the application on 4 October 2013. That decision was upheld by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board on 1 April 2014. On 15 February 2015, the author requested that his case be reopened owing to his conversion to Christianity. On 18 May 2015, the Board reopened the author’s case, but rejected his application on 28 July 2015.

4. No information is provided regarding the circumstances of the author’s arrival to Denmark. ↩

In his initial asylum application, the author had submitted that he was an ethnic Tadzik from Herat, Afghanistan, and that he would be exposed to danger if returned to Afghanistan “by the killers of his son”,⁵ due to the fact that he had coproduced a television programme on the conflicts between the Kuchi and the Hazara communities in the Bahsood area. He also submitted that he was fearful of being killed by the brothers of an influential person connected to the Hezbe Islami organization, N.M., who had been arrested and sentenced to seven years of imprisonment as a result of a police operation in which the author had participated as a witness.⁶ The author argued before the Refugee Appeals Board that, in the event of being removed to Afghanistan, he would be the object of reprisals by the family of N.M.. The Board considered that the author’s explanations regarding his conflict with N.M. were not satisfactory. It also considered that, although the author had received threats from the family of N.M. after his conviction, he had not received any threats after he had left Herat for Kabul.⁷

5. No information is provided on this issue. ↩
6. The author submits that he was part of a group of people who were being blackmailed by N.M.. No further details are provided on this matter. ↩
7. The author does not submit any information regarding the circumstances of his move to Kabul or any further details regarding the initial asylum application submitted to the Danish authorities. ↩

The author submits that he converted to Christianity on 3 June 2014 but that, prior to that date, he already had a connection with that religion. In September 2012, he had gone on a trip organized by the Red Cross language school with other asylum seekers to several places in Copenhagen, including a church, where he saw one of his Afghan friends, H., praying. He asked him about Christianity and about his conversion, and H. gave him a copy of the Gospel According to Luke and a film on Christianity. The author read the Gospel, watched the film, attended an event at a Lutheran café and participated in the Christmas celebration organized by the International Christian Centre, where he was attending language classes. He also joined the Nordvest Kirken church for monthly meals, at which Christianity was discussed. The author claims that, at that time, he did not attend church services because he still considered himself as a moderate Muslim, which is why he had not mentioned his interest in Christianity to the Refugee Appeals Board.

After the rejection of his asylum claim on 1 April 2014, the author travelled to Sweden, where he filed an asylum application. While there, he met M., an Afghan who had converted to Christianity. M. invited him to a church where the author joined the service and prayed for the first time. From that moment, he joined the service every Sunday and started Bible classes six days a week. He learned about the meaning of baptism and agreed with the priest that he would be baptised when ready. He was baptised on 3 June 2014.⁸ After that, he returned to Denmark pursuant to the Dublin Regulations.⁹ The author indicates that, since his return to Denmark, he has attended Bible classes every Sunday, weekly Bible study classes, monthly meals and conversations at the Nordvest Kirken Church and activities at the Lutheran café. He has also signed up for a six-month stay at the Lutheran Missionary Folk High School in Hillerød, starting on 1 August 2015, but was unable to attend because of his illegal status. He also claims that he prays and reads and studies the Bible every day.

8. The author provided a certificate by a pastor confirming that the author had participated in the activities mentioned above and that he had been baptized. ↩
9. The date of the return to Denmark is not specified. ↩

In its decision of 28 July 2015, the Refugee Appeals Board noted that the author’s conversion to Christianity had taken place immediately after the denial of his asylum application and therefore considered that it had been constructed for the occasion. The Board also noted that the author had requested that his case be reopened several months after his conversion and that, during that period, he had been living in Denmark illegally.¹⁰ In addition, the Board considered that the author’s posts on social media had not been explicit about his conversion to Christianity, that his family had not been aware of the conversion and that the religious activities he had participated in had not been sufficient to demonstrate that his conversion had been genuine. Therefore, the Board considered that the author would not be exposed to any risk if removed to Afghanistan.

10. The author submits that, on 9 July 2015, after the Refugee Appeals Board had decided to reopen his case, he submitted a letter explaining that he had made a connection with Christianity in September 2012 and that the religion had made a very positive impression on him, as it receives every person regardless of their faith, contrary to what happens in Afghanistan, where religions other than Islam are rejected. The author explained to the Board that when his asylum application was rejected he was left without hope and went to Sweden, where he made contact with Afghan Christians; the author also provided details on how he converted. He then mentioned all the different church-related activities he had been attending since then. The author informed the Board that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would not be able to speak freely about his conversion; he would neither pretend to be Muslim again nor go to Mosque, and consequently he would be rejected by Afghan society. He also indicated that his conversion could result in his being sentenced to death penalty or subjected to ill-treatment. ↩

The decision of the Refugee Appeals Board is final, and the author has therefore exhausted all the available domestic remedies.

The author claims that his deportation to Afghanistan would violate his rights under the Covenant as, once there, his conversion would put him at risk: as a converted Christian, he would not go to Mosque, would not fast during Ramadan and would not pray to Allah; he would be considered a non-believer, which would put him at a risk of being tortured or even killed. His deportation would therefore violate article 7 of the Covenant. The author also claims that he could be accused of being an apostate, which could put him in danger of being arrested and even sentenced to death.¹¹ Furthermore, the author would suffer complete rejection from Afghan society, which could put him in danger of persecution, including physical harm, taking into account that the Taliban has threatened to sentence converts to death. As a convert, the author would also risk deprivation of all his property.

11. The author does not claim a violation of article 6. ↩

The author further claims that the circumstances described above should be combined with the fact that, in the past, he had been in conflict with people affiliated with radical Islam, as evidenced by the threats he had received from the family of N.M. linked to the Hezbe Islami organization,¹² which enhanced the risk that the author would be exposed to if removed to Afghanistan.

12. See para. 2.2. ↩

In addition, the author considers that, if returned to Afghanistan, he would be obliged to conceal his Christian faith, in violation of article 18 of the Covenant. The author considers that the Refugee Appeals Board did not give sufficient weight to the arguments he had presented during the asylum proceedings to demonstrate his genuine conversion. The author also states that it is not relevant whether the Afghan authorities currently know about his conversion and that the decision of the Board could not be made on the assumption that he would hide his faith. As part of the rights enshrined in article 18, the author submits that he must be able to manifest his religion and carry out related activities freely.

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must determine whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

The Committee observes that the author’s original request for asylum on the grounds of his fear of persecution by private individuals, including the family of N.M. and the “killers of his son”, had been refused by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board for lack of satisfactory proof of risk. Since the author claimed that he had converted to Christianity after those decisions, the Board reopened the author’s case on 18 May 2015 in order to examine his request on that new ground, giving him the opportunity to substantiate his new argument and to submit evidence to support it. On 28 July 2015, the Board dismissed the argument, asserting that the author had failed to demonstrate that his conversion to Christianity had been genuine and that the Afghan authorities might be aware of his conversion. The Committee notes that the author disagrees with that decision. However, he has failed to establish that the State party’s authorities did not properly consider all of his submissions, and the information he provided does not demonstrate any irregularity or arbitrariness in the decision-making process in Denmark. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 7 and 18 of the Covenant have been insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, and concludes that the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol;