Concerning Mr. A.H.F vs Denmark for violation of articles 2 and 3 of ECHR.

The applicant is a citizen of Somalia from Misra, a town currently controlled by the Al-Shabaab movement. He is a former member of the Parliament. The applicant had to flee because the Al-shabaab wanted to kill him. He left Somalia and resided in Denmark since 2004, however as part of the Somali diaspora he was elected member of Parliament in Mogadishu.
The author lived a double life. He had one family (wife and children) in Denmark, who were not told that he also had another family (wife and children) in Somalia. Since the situation for his family in Somalia became worse, he decided to go to Sweden and apply for asylum, and apply for family reunification with the family in Somalia. He was awarded residence in Sweden in 2011, however by mid 2012 the Swedish authorities detected that he already had residence in Denmark and his Swedish residence was withdrawn. Furthermore, his Danish residence was no longer valid and consequently he was in a limbo, and since he no longer had residence in Sweden, he was then about to be deported to Somalia. Thus he applied for asylum in Denmark, stating that he risks persecution in Somalia. In order to show the seriousness of the situation, the author amongst others brought a newspaper article from Somalia mentioning that his son was killed by the Al-Shabaab. In this article it is also mentioned that the author is a former member of the Parliament.

All background information indicated that the Al-Shabab are targeting individuals in Mogadishu who are members of Parliament. Since the author is no longer a member of the Parliament, he can no longer have the protection of AMISON and stay in the secured zone like he could earlier. Consequently the author is in risk of persecution on return- not only in his own town but also in Mogadishu. Thus a complaint was sent to ECHR on 15 July 2016.

The Committee concludes that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and declares the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol