Concerning Ms. K.I.A vs Denmark for violation of Articles 2d, 12 and 15 of CEDAW.
The author fears getting killed by her family and Al-Shabaab if she returns to Somalia. The author has been under complete male dominance in her home country of Somalia. First her father used to control her and when he was killed, her brother controlled over her life. When her father died she was denied inheritance from him and she was used as a “merchandise” by her own brother. He forced her to marry his father in law- Mr. S.A. Her brother wanted to get the author out of the way because she claimed the legacy of his father. It was also convenient because the brother still owed compensation from his own marriages and therefore could “pay” his father in law (Mr. S.A) with his own sister (the author) as the bride.
At first she escaped attempted rape with her new spouse as she was sewn together after circumcision as an 8 year old. When her husband wanted her “opened” so he could rape her, she fled at night and came to Ethiopia in December 2013. Here she contacted her aunt, who sent her money for a flight to Europe. She entered Denmark and applied for asylum.
The Immigration service rejected her asylum application and the Refugee Board upheld that decision on 22 July 2015. The Board stated that the explanation appears unlikely and diverging. Since the Board did not believe her, they also refused to allow for a medical torture examination before making the final verdict. This is the kind of argument that we have seen in many torture cases, If the Board believes the applicant, there is no need for a medical examination. If on the other hand the board does not believe the applicant, there is still no need for an examination because we do not believe you! In other words, there will never be a medical torture examination that may in fact show that the author was tortured before fleeing the country of origin, and thus give another outcome of the Refugee board session.
All background information about Somalia confirms the widespread risk of rape and gender violence there, due to the conflict situation and the strong male domination of that society. The Danish Refugee Board had made no reference to her claim about risk of gender specific violence in their final decision. The Danish refugee Board has also made no attempt to argue why forced deportation to Somalia would not be in violation of CEDAW. Thus a complaint was sent to CEDAW on 7 August 2015.
The CEDAW, given that the whereabouts of the author of communication No. 93/2015 were unknown and that her counsel had lost contact with her, decided to discontinue its consideration of the communication.