Deportation of a single woman and her minor daughter to Morocco

Facts

The author is a Moroccan national and submits the communication for herself and on behalf of her minor daughter C. In 2010, the author travelled from Morocco to Denmark to work as a childcare provider. Hailing from a very traditional and conservative family, the author had been engaged to a cousin before moving to Denmark. However, on the expiry of her residence permit in 2011 in Denmark, the author was fearful of returning to Morocco as the author’s sexual relationships while in Denmark would not be accepted in Islamic Moroccan culture and hence she remained in Denmark. The author became pregnant with C in 2014, and she kept the pregnancy a secret from her family, fearing disapproval and even kept the birth of C a secret from her family. The author applied for asylum in Denmark in 2014 and thereafter the author informed her family about the birth of C. The author claims that her brothers threatened to kill her and her family expressed that she had brought shame and dishonour on her family. The Danish Immigration Service interviewed the author in 2015 and rejected her application for asylum. On appeal, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.

The author submits that by removing her and her daughter to Morocco would result in them being subject to torture, or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of their rights under articles 6, 7 and 14 of the Covenant. The author also alleges a violation of articles 2, 3, 6 and 27 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), regarding C’s rights to life, survival and development, and an adequate standard of living. The author also alleges unspecified violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).

Admissibility

As there was no contention regarding the lack of exhaustion of local remedies by the author and owing to the finality of the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board, the Committee noted that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol would not impediment the admissibility of the communication. With respect to the authors claims under the CRC and the CEDAW, the Committee recalled that its competence is only limited to the examination of communications claiming violation of rights under the Covenant. The alleged violations under other treaties and agreements were considered as falling outside the scope of the Committee’s competence and were inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee noted, considering factors such as the long duration of time since threats by her family members had been made and that she could no longer contact her family members, that the author had not provided any information that could indicate that the disapproval of her family members was of such a magnitude that she would be at a risk of persecution if she returned to Morocco. The Committee considered the claims of the author under article 7 as being insufficiently substantiated. Further, considering the author’s independent life for the past several years, the Committee considered the claim of the author that she would not be supported by her family and would be at a risk of being disowned as insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of establishing risk of social or economic hardship in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also noted that the author had not provided sufficient substantiation of her claims that the assessment of the Refugee Appeals Board against certain factual matters was erroneous and irregular. The Committee also considered the finding of the Refugee Appeals Board that there was an absence of instances of honour killing in Morocco and that there were crisis shelters and organisations which provided assistance with respect to registration and documentation for children born out of wedlock.

For these reasons the Committee held that the author had not sufficiently substantiated her claims as well as claims for her child under articles 6 and 7, and hence they were inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. Contrary to the author’s claim that her removal to Morocco would violate her rights under article 14 as she would not benefit from a fair trial, the Committee held that the author had not substantiated her rights under article 14 would be violated in a manner that would pose a substantial risk of irreparable harm under articles 6 and 7, and hence the claim is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. For these reasons, the Committee held that the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.