Inadmissible communication on family deportation to India owing to lack of credibility

Facts

The authors are Indian nationals who, despite belonging to two different social castes, married against their parents’ wishes. They submit the communication on their behalf and on behalf of their children, claiming that their removal to India (following the State party’s rejection of their refugee application) violates their rights under articles 6, 7, 9, 17, 23, 24, and 26 of the Covenant. They claim that, as a result of their marriage, they were subjected to persecution (as the authors were of a different social class) – including, inter alia, being warned by a doctor that he had been told to terminate the wife’s pregnancy and kill her. They fear being the victims of an honour crime if returned to India. The State party found the authors’ claim for refugee status lacked credibility.

Admissibility

The Committee found the authors’ claims inadmissible, as (i) the authors had failed to substantiate their claims of a violation under articles 9, 17, 23, 24, and 26 of the Covenant, and (ii) that the authors failed to show that the State party’s findings on credibility were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The Committee found that the State party had considered all possible elements of the authors’ claims, and conversely, that the authors had failed to sufficiently substantiate their credibility in their documents and statements to Canadian authorities. Consequently, the Committee considered that the communication was inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.