Concerning Mr. N.P vs Denmark for violation of article 7 of CCPR.

The author was born in Kathmandu in Nepal, and he is Hindu. The author is an orphan and does not know whether his family is alive. He is a homosexual, and he fears imprisonment and torture/inhumane treatment on return to Nepal, as it is illegal to be gay in Nepal. He was already in a detention centre in Nepal in 2004, when he participated in a demonstration against the king. He was beaten and cut several times on his arm, leaving visible scars. The applicant moved to India, when he was 7 years old, because he was bothered by other people in the city about his homosexuality. They shouted ‘gay’ after him, and they began to spit at him. He was also beaten as people threw stones at him. The author fled to India, because it was allowed to be gay there.

When the applicant was in India, he worked as a shoe polisher, but sometimes he did not receive pay. He states that he has been subject to slavery during his stay in India. The applicant’s employer started giving the author drugs when he was 9-10 years old, and the author has been addicted ever since. He heard from some friends that there would be more freedom in Europe, so he fled to Holland. The author came to Denmark on 6 September 2007 by train from Holland, where he had a student residence permit which has now expired. He came to Denmark, because he has a danish lover here.

The Immigration Service refused the author asylum on 14 October 2011. On 28 June 2012, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the refusal. The Refugee Appeals Board does not consider the author’s information about being gay as credible. The Board just like the Immigration Service did not address any information about the previous torture or inhuman treatment however. The fact that the author had visible scars on his arm during the interview was not addressed at all. Instead, the Board only mentions lack of credibility.

A complaint was sent to UNHRC on 15 August 2012. Under article 7 of CCPR the member states are under obligation not to deport people who are in risk of torture or inhumane treatment. His visible scars can put him at risk at the airport, as being identified as a former protester against the king. In a case at the European Court of Human Rights the court established that the authorities would discover the complainants scars and thus the complainants former problems with the local authorities. The same applies to this case, and if the authorities identified him as a former protester he would risk further interrogation and maybe torture.