Last updated on July 19th, 2024 at 10:21 am

The case involves T.M., a Zimbabwean national born in 1996, who sought asylum in Denmark. She claimed that her deportation to Zimbabwe would violate her rights under Articles 2, 3, and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW). T.M. was represented by Niels-Erik Hansen.

T.M. arrived in Denmark in 2017 on an au pair visa, which later expired. She overstayed her visa due to fear of gender-based violence in Zimbabwe. Specifically, she feared forced marriage, rape, and sexual abuse by her deceased cousin’s husband. She also feared political persecution because her father is an active member of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), an opposition party in Zimbabwe. T.M. reported instances of harassment and threats linked to her father’s political activities.

Procedural Issues
T.M. sought protection from deportation through interim measures, which were denied. She was detained in Denmark, and her requests for transfer to a women-only facility were also denied.

Denmark argued that T.M. had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims. The Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board thoroughly assessed her case and found no real, personal, and foreseeable risk of serious harm if she were returned to Zimbabwe. Denmark stated that T.M.’s detention conditions were appropriate, with access to proper facilities and hygiene products.

Committee’s Considerations
The Committee examined whether T.M. would face a significant risk of gender-based violence or political persecution if returned to Zimbabwe. They noted the challenging situation for women in Zimbabwe but found T.M.’s claims insufficiently substantiated. The Committee emphasized the importance of the State party’s thorough assessment unless it was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.

– Decision
The Committee declared T.M.’s communication inadmissible under Article 4 (1) and (2) (c) of the Optional Protocol. It concluded that T.M.’s non-refoulement claims were inadmissible due to insufficient evidence that her deportation would violate her rights under the Convention.
The decision was communicated to both Denmark and T.M. The Committee found no evidence of gender-based discrimination or a significant risk of persecution due to her father’s political activities if T.M. were returned to Zimbabwe.