Inadmissibility for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and lack of substantiation in a deportation process

Facts

The author, born in the European part of the Netherlands, resided in Bonaire from 2010 to 2016 without officially registering. During this period, he committed criminal offenses, leading to a persona non grata declaration and an order for his removal in November 2015. Despite filing objections and initiating legal proceedings, including an appeal to the Joint Court of Justice, the decisions to deport him were upheld.

The author contends that his exclusion from Bonaire and subsequent deportation to Curaçao violate his rights under article 12 of the Covenant, either independently or in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and 26. He questions the validity of the Netherlands’ reservation regarding article 12, asserting that his rights were arbitrarily denied in all six Caribbean islands within the Netherlands. Additionally, he argues that treating him as a foreign national and expelling him to Curaçao amounts to degrading treatment under article 7 of the Covenant. Lastly, the author seeks compensation for expenses incurred during his return from Curaçao to the European part of the Netherlands, contending that this trip could have been avoided if not for his “arbitrary” deportation to Curaçao.

Admissibility

The Committee finds the author’s claims under article 7 inadmissible due to the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, as he did not raise allegations of degrading treatment before national authorities. Regarding the claims under article 2 (1), the Committee deems them incompatible and inadmissible, as they are not distinct from the examination of the author’s rights under article 12. The Committee concludes that the author has failed to substantiate his claim under article 12, as the expulsion was prompted by his illegal stay and activity in Bonaire. The objections to the reservation and declaration under article 12 are considered inadmissible due to insufficient substantiation. Additionally, the claims under article 26 are deemed inadmissible, lacking sufficient substantiation and failing to establish discriminatory treatment. Consequently, the Committee declares the communication inadmissible under articles 2, 3, and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, with the decision transmitted to both the State party and the author.