Inadmissibility of claims regarding the deportation of a member of the Jehovah’s Witness faith to the Russian Federation, where the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses are banned

Facts

The author of the communication is a national of the Russian Federation, and claims that her deportation to the Russian Federation would result in a violation of her rights under article 7 of the Convention, both alone and in conjunction with articles 18(1) and (3), and articles 26-27. The author belongs to a Christian denomination of Jehovah’s Witnesses and is active in her faith. In 2017, pursuant to a decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian federation, the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses were banned and the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses was declared an extremist organisation. The author continued to discreetly practice her faith, including by organizing religious meetings. In connection with one such meeting, a criminal investigation was opened against the author. The author was placed on a list of criminal extremists, and the police repeatedly searched for the author, including by coming to her house. Subsequently, the author travelled to Finland and applied for asylum on the basis of religious persecution. The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the author’s asylum application, concluding that she would not face a risk of imprisonment in the Russian Federation, and the author’s subsequent appeal and request for appeal were unsuccessful. In September 2021, officials informed the author’s attorney that upon her return to the Russian Federation, the author would be summoned for questioning and would be imprisoned. The author then applied again for asylum in Finland, invoking new and favourable jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. This application was again rejected, and the author’s appeal was unsuccessful. The author was orally informed that she had a few weeks to voluntarily leave Finland.

The author claims that her deportation would violate her rights under the Covenant because she has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for her religious beliefs in the Russian Federation, where several hundred Jehovah’s Witnesses have been arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for practicing the faith. The author contends that the State party’s migration authorities failed to apply the correct legal standard when assessing her claims, because they did not consider the rapidly deteriorating situation for Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation, in order to properly evaluate the level of risk that the author would face upon her return.

Admissibility

The Committee considered the communication inadmissible under article  2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee detailed the author’s applications for asylum, including the arguments and documentation considered by the State party’s authorities. In the absence of a response from the author regarding the State party’s observations on the admissibility of the communication, as well as a lack of information provided in proceedings before the State party’s authorities, the author had failed to provide adequate details to substantiate her claim that she would face a personal risk of irreparable harm of the type contemplated under article 7 of the Convention, read alone or in conjunction with articles 18, 26, or 27.