ICCPR Case Digest




Submission: 2014.02.07

View Adopted: 2019.03.14

M.M. v. Denmark

Allegation of ill-treatment if removed to Afghanistan, no violation as author unable to substantiate a real, personal risk

Substantive Issues
  • Arbitrary Expulsion
  • Deportation
  • Equality before the law
  • Freedom of religion
  • Non-refoulement
  • Right to life
  • Torture / ill-treatment
Relevant Articles
  • Article 13
  • Article 14
  • Article 18
  • Article 2 - OP1
  • Article 26
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
Full Text


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

The author's mother died when he was 9, and a year later his father was kidnapped by the Taliban. Following this, he fled to Kabul with his sister, and later entered Denmark without any travel documentation in 2011. The author applied for asylum and was later denied, and subsequant appeals also failed. The assessment of domestic authorities was that a risk of persecution justifying asylum, the death penalty, or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was unsubstantiated. 

The author claimed that Denmark would violate his rights under articles 6, 7, 14, 18 and 26 of the Covenant if removed to Afghanistan. 


The Committee conisdered that the author did not substantiate his claim relating to article 6 (the right to life) and declared this part of the claim inadmissible.


The Committee noted that although a state party may not deport a person where there is substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as those contemplated in article 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the risk must be personal, and requires a high degree of substantiation. The Committee also noted that it is generally for the organs of state parties to examine the facts and evidence of any particular case.

The Committee noted that while not understating the human rights concerns in Afghanistan, the facts and evidence raised by the author do not raise sufficient grounds for demonstrating that his forcible return will violate his rights under 7 and 18 of the Covenant. 

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