Deportation to Pakistan on charges of proselytism

Facts

The authors are a married couple of Pakistani nationality who submitted the communication on their own behalf as well as on the behalf of their three minor children. The authors are Christians and M.G. and played an active role, including that of a President, of a few minority foundations in Pakistan. M.G. was warned against proselytising which he refused and was subsequently reported to the police for carrying out missionary work and for allegedly speaking disparagingly of Prophet Mohammad. Criminal charges were brought against M.G. and the author escaped a shooting directed at him. Post this, the authors and their children fled Pakistan to Denmark in 2012. In 2013, the Danish Immigration Service refused to grant residence permits to the authors and their children and in 2014 the Refugee Appeals Board refused the authors’ claim for refugee status stating that their lack of credibility of key events as the reason for refusal.

The authors’ claim that they would be at risk of persecution in violation of articles 6 and 7, as well as article 18 of the Covenant as they would have to hide their religious beliefs if returned to Pakistan. Furthermore, the authors also claim that they were unable to appeal the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board to the ordinary Danish courts which amounts to a violation of their fair trial rights under article 14 of the Covenant. In 2014, the Committee decided to register the communication and request interim measures concerning the authors and their children, and in 2018 decided to suspend the same owing to the domestic proceedings that were being conducted. In 2022, the State party requested the Committee to be reopened with respect to claims of MG. In 2022, B.R. withdrew the communication that she had submitted on behalf herself and her three children as they had been granted residence permits in Denmark in 2021.

Admissibility

Given that B.G. withdrew the communication in relation to her and the authors’ children, the Committee decided to consider the complaints of M.G. only. The Committee observed that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board was not based on the inconsistencies of the accounts of persecution claimed by M.G. in Pakistan, but also on the lack of genuine and authentic nature of the documents submitted by M.G. in support of his arguments. The Committee also noted M.G. had not mentioned about being subject to persecution or abuse arising due to religious beliefs in his statements to the Danish Immigration Service. The Committee observed that with respect to M.G. ‘s claims that he suffered from a serious physical disease for which he would be unable to receive treatment in Pakistan, the Refugee Appeals Board had held that the author had failed to establish that he would be cut off from receiving the necessary treatment in Pakistan.

The Committee considered that the Refugee Appeals Board had conducted a comprehensive examination to conclude that the M.G. had no conflict with the Pakistani authorities. Contrary to M.G.’s claims, the Committee held that he had not sufficiently substantiated his claims that the State party’s authorities failed to assess the risk posed to him if he returned to Pakistan. The Committee also held that there was no prima facie evidence before it to show that the author would be at a real risk of persecution in violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 on his return to Pakistan. The Committee noted the State party’s argument that M.G. replaced a claim for violation of article 14 to a violation of article 13 as it was incompatible ratione materiae as asylum proceedings fall outside the scope of article 14. The Committee found that M.G. had not sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 13 and hence held that it was inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee held that M.G. failed to establish a real risk of persecution on his return to Pakistan and that he has been or would be deprived of his rights under article 18 in Denmark. The Committee held that this led to incompatibility ratione materiae as it falls outside the jurisdiction of the State party. With respect to M.G.’s claims under article 26, the Committee held that they had been insufficiently substantiated. For these reasons, the Committee held that the communication of M.G. was inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.