Last updated on November 24th, 2023 at 12:32 pm

The author is from Turkey. As an asylum motive, he explained that he feared being sentenced to a longer prison term because he had been a member of a number of parties, including the PKK and KCK from 2006 to 2010. Furthermore, the applicant feared being sentenced a long prison sentence because he was a conscientious objector, just as he risked being imposed on military service and in doing so feared being killed by the authorities because he is an ethnic Kurd. 

In processing the case, the Refugee Board did not see any reason to allow for a medical torture examination of the author since he was not considered “credible” by the Board. The asylum case was first decided by the Refugee Board in 2013 and the same year brought before the UN Committee against Torture. The communication was named no. 580/2014 (F.K. vs. Denmark). 

The UN Committee Against Torture on 22 December 2015 published its opinion with regard to the case, criticized the board’s decision from 2013, because in the Committee’s opinion, the board had not taken all relevant information in consideration in the case. 

Futhermore, The Committee states that-

“8. In the light of the above, the Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the State party has an obligation, in accordance with article 3 of the Convention, to refrain from forcibly returning the complainant to Turkey or to any other country where he runs a real risk of being expelled or returned to Turkey. The Committee also finds that the State party violated the requirements of article 12, read in conjunction with article 16, of the Convention.”

The State Party was given a time limit of 90 days to respond to this opinion (so called follow-up).

The case was reopened in the Refugee Board and reconsidered on 17 March 2016, where the board included the Committee’s opinion in the basis for its decision, but again refused asylum. Again the Board did not see any reason to allow for a medical torture examination of the author; and again with the argument that the author did not seem credible. He was ordered to leave Denmark. The author thus filled a new  Communication (No. 743/2016) arguing violation of CAT article 3 (again). The author also requested interim measures, which was granted by the Committee.  The State Party nevertheless refused to stop the forced deportation of the author, however the Committee on 30 June 2016 reminded the Danish Government: “ ..  that in accordance with the Committees jurisprudence, the State Party will be in serious breach of its obligations under Article 22 of the Convention by failing to respect the requested interim measures…”

The author then took out legal action against the Refugee Board and on 3 March 2017 the City Court of Copenhagen ruled, that the author should be allowed to stay in Denmark during the processing of this city court case. The complainant was deported to Turkey in 2018, when it was decided by the Supreme Court that the author could be deported. The author has stated, that he on his arrival in Turkey, was detained by the turkish police and tortured. Afterwards he served in military service against his will. The Refugee Board fis of the view that these new informationsare unsubstantiated and therefore not a reason to reopen the case.

The Committee decided on 30 December 2020. The UN Committee against Torture rejected the complaint against the Refugee Board’s decision to refuse asylum as inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, and criticized the board for not maintaining the postponement of an exit deadline.

For further information of the case, see resume and text of  Communication No. 580/2014, which is also on this homepage as “Ethnic and political persecution of Kurdish man in Turkey”:

Ethnic and political persecution of Kurdish man in Turkey