Concerning A. O. vs. Denmark for violation of article 3 of CAT and article 7 of CCPR.
The author left Syria as a political prosecutor and has been arrested and subjected to torture by the Syrian authorities due to his Kurdish background. He entered Denmark in 2010. When he applied for asylum in Denmark, he expressed his fear for a return to Syria, since he- even though never has served in the military- has been politically persecuted since 2009. During his stay in jail, he was humiliated, hit and tortured by for example being exposed to a torture method called “Doulab”. By the end of his stay the police forced him to cooperate with them. At first he rejected but felt himself pressured to follow order for his own safety and good, and was released 2 days later. He never saw a judge.
The Danish Immigration Service made an interview with the author where he explained his stay and the situation in jail back in March 2009 where he suffered from torture including “Doulab”. In order to be able to verify such information, the Immigration Service is expected to ask the author if he wants to participate in a medical torture examination and sign a form of consent to do this. Instead of asking the author to sign the form of consent, the Board decided not to postpone the processing of the case in order to allow for a medical torture examination to be carried out – and it was simply decided to reject his application for asylum and ask him to leave the country. As a result of rejecting the medical examination in 2011, the Refugee Board, for 2 years, prevented the author from entering a rehabilitation programme that he desperately needed, which is why it was argued that the Boards decision was in violation of CAT article 3.
16. June 2020