Last updated on November 21st, 2023 at 01:59 pm

Concerning Mr. C.Y vs. Denmark violation of CAT article 3.

The Chinese applicant belonged to a Christian organization named The Almighty God. The members met often and held church services. In 2007, the Chinese government labelled the organization as being against the communist party and against the government. The government started arresting the members, and placing them with seasoned criminals. The applicant was arrested in May 2012. In prison, he was beaten regularly both by inmates and prison guards. He was detained for 18 months and was only released after being beaten so violently, that he passed out and was hospitalized for one month and a half.  After his release, he had to report to the police every fifteen days whether he still had contact with Almighty God. In February 2014, the applicant heard that the police was starting to arrest people from the church again, so he planned his escape and fled to Denmark.

The applicant entered Denmark in June 2014 and applied for asylum. He was refused asylum as the Danish authorities found that the applicant had made inconsistent and incoherent statements on crucial elements of his case. The case was brought before the Committee against Torture in December 2014. The Refugee Board then invited the applicant for another board hearing in February 2017 but his application for asylum was rejected yet again.

The Committee is of the view, that the complainant has not provided any evidence that the Chinese authorities have been looking for him in the resent past, or were otherwise interested in him. The Committee also observes that the author has not had contact with Almighty God since his departure from China and that he no longer consider himself a member of the Almighty.

Accordingly, the Committee is of the view, that the complainant has not adequately demonstrated the existence of substantial grounds for believing that his return to China at present would expose him to a real, specific and personal risk of torture, and therefore is the return of the author not in violation of article 3 of the CAT.