Egyptian Christians are to be deported

F and G, nationals of Egypt, submit the communication on behalf of themselves and their three minor children, following the rejection of their applications for refugee status in Denmark. They assert that the State party would violate their rights under articles 7, 9 and 18 (1) of the Covenant by removing them to Egypt.
The authors are Coptic Christians. During childhood, G was subjected to female genital mutilation. As an adult, G became close with a young female neighbour and frequently spoke to her about religion. G gave the neighbour a Bible and put her in contact with a priest. Later, the neighbour fell in love and ran away with a Christian man without her family’s permission. As a result, the neighbour’s father, who was associated with Salafists (members of the Muslim Brotherhood), came to the authors’ home and violently threatened them. Many Salafists consider Coptic Christians to be disbelievers. In addition, facilitating conversion to Christianity is a serious crime in Egypt.
Under the Egyptian Penal Code, individuals who propagate extreme thoughts may face imprisonment for up to five years. F was arrested and detained in a prison in Alexandria for 15 days. He was told that he had been detained because he was a Christian and a disbeliever. His cell was very small. He was sometimes removed from the cell and transferred to another police station in town to undergo fingerprinting and other examinations. He was subjected to substantial physical and psychological violence. Specifically, every six to eight hours, prison guards kicked him and beat him with either their hands or sticks. On many occasions, they removed his shirt and beat his torso, while at other times, they inflicted blows to his head, back and arms. On three occasions, the guards stripped him completely and beat him, while cursing him and accusing him of being a disbeliever. They also tried to force sticks into his anus. He was beaten so severely that he fell down and lay naked on the cement floor, where the guards kicked him. When he tried to protect himself, the beatings became more forceful. These acts of torture left him with scars on his back and severe physical and mental health problems, including heart problems for which he has had several operations.
During their interview with the Immigration Service, both authors stated that, after F’s release from prison, he was admitted to hospital owing to heart problems. G stated that F was hospitalized for two weeks at that time and had open-heart surgery to remove three blood clots. F stated that he had undergone surgery to remove a blood clot, and suffered from diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure. F also stated that he had back pain owing to the beatings. F stated during his interview with the Immigration Service that he had been examined by a doctor in Denmark.
The authors arrived in Denmark and applied for asylum the next day. The Danish Immigration Service denied their asylum applications and the Refugee Appeals Board denied their appeals. In its decision, the Board denied F’s request to postpone the case so that he could undergo a medical examination for signs of torture. The authors were denied asylum by the Danish authorities.
The pleading has been presented to the CCPR. The authors assert that the State party would violate their rights under articles 7, 9 and 18 (1) of the Covenant by forcibly removing them to Egypt, where they risk being subjected anew to religious persecution, and where F also risks being subjected to torture and arbitrary arrest owing to G’s involvement in her neighbour’s conversion to Christianity. Although Christianity is recognized as a religion in Egypt, helping someone to convert from Islam to Christianity is a punishable offence, and persecution of Christian Copts is increasing.
The Committee therefore considers that the Board did not adequately examine the authors’ claims concerning the reasons for which they fled Egypt. Against the background concerning the continuing situation of the Coptic community in Egypt referred to by the authors, the Committee considers that under the totality of the circumstances, the authors have presented compelling evidence to indicate that their return to Egypt would be accompanied by a personal and real risk of irreparable harm, such that the State party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant by removing them to Egypt.

30. August 2024

CCPR 2530/2015
  • Decision: 20. October 2017
  • Comm: Human Rights