The author Z., a national of Morocco, v. Denmark in violation of articles 6,7,14 of the Covenant. Z. was born in a very traditional and conservative family and therefore after having had several sexual relationships in Denmark and becoming pregnant, had a fear to of negative consequences and accusations in her violations of Islamic Moroccan culture. After having informed her family on the birth of daughter C, the author’s brothers then threatened to kill the author. The author’s family members were furious and stated that the author had brought shame and dishonor on the family.

The author applied for asylum in Denmark in 2014, which has been rejected. This decision of the Danish Immigration Service was uphold by the Refugee Appeals Board in 2016. The domestic authorities reasoned that the author had not substantiated her claim that she would face persecution in Morocco. The authorities also considered that the conflict allegedly faced by the author related to private individuals and that the author could seek protection from the authorities in Morocco.

Z. presented a communication v. Denmark in violation of CCPR articles 6,7,14, as far as the author could be killed or subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in Morocco. The lives of the author and her daughter C could be at risk there, as far as the sexual relations outside of marriage are criminalized in Morocco and the author would not benefit from a fair trial or protection from the courts. In addition, the process for registering a child, born outside of marriage, is difficult is the father is not present. Children born outside of marriage face discrimination and their inability to obtain legal documents renders many aspects of life difficult, including access to employment, health care and education.

In 2023 CCPR considered that the author’s claims under articles 6,7 and 14 of the Covenant were insufficiently substantiated and were inadmissible, reasoned that the author had not provided a credible account, given inconsistencies between statements. The author’s staying in Denmark in a period between visa expiry and applying for asylum (2011-2014) was illegal. The case was discontinued.