ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/126/D/2346/2014

Communication

2346/2014

Submission: 2014.02.07

View Adopted: 2019.07.24

E.K. v. Denmark

Allegations of ill-treatment if returned to Afghanistan, declared inadmissible as manifestly unsubstantiated

Substantive Issues
  • Arbitrary Expulsion
  • Equality before the law
  • Fair trial
  • Freedom of religion
  • Non-refoulement
  • Right to life
  • Torture / ill-treatment
Relevant Articles
  • Article 13
  • Article 14
  • Article 18
  • Article 26
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
Full Text

Facts

The author is an Afghan national whom claimed asylum in Denmark and was rejected, and at the time of communicaiton was awaiting deportation to Afghanistan. 

The author entered Denmark in 2011 without any valid travel documentation and applied for asylum on the same day, noting that he could not return to Afghanistan because the country was at war and because he alleged his father had been killed by the Taliban. The domestic authorities considered that there was not a real, personal risk of persecution requiring international protection and rejected his application.

The author claims that his deportation from Denmark to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7, 14, 18 and 26 of the Covenant. 

Admissibility

  • The Committee noted that that the author had not presented any evidence to sufficiently substantiate his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and further that the author has never been to Afghanistan and has therefore never personally experienced any problems with the Afghan authorities, the Taliban or others in Afghanistan.
  • The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities and with their decision not to reopen his case, he has not shown that the decisions of the domestic authorities were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee considered that this part of the communication as insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
  • The Committee notes the author’s claim under article 13 of the Covenant that he was unable to appeal the negative decisions of the Board to a judicial body. In that regard, the Committee concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this particular claim under article 13 of the Covenant, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
  • The Committee further notes that the author also claimed a violation of articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant. The Committee observes that the author had the opportunity to submit and challenge evidence concerning his forcible return to Afghanistan and had his asylum application examined by the Danish Immigration Service and reviewed by the Board and twice by the Board’s Chair. The Committee considered, therefore, that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims concerning the procedure before the Board under articles 13 and 26 of the Covenant for purposes of admissibility.
  • Finally, the Committee notes that the author has invoked a violation of article 18 of the Covenant, however this portion of the complaint is considered insufficiently substantiated and was declared inadmissible.

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese