Concerning Mr. S.A.H vs Denmark for violation of articles 2, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 26 of CCPR.
The following case has been decided. The Committee found on the 8. November 2017 that the communication was inadmissible.
The author is an Afghanistan citizen -ethnic Qizilbash born in 1987. When he was 12 years old, his father was killed by a local commander, A.M.B. It is disputed whether it was a targeted killing or whether his father was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The author however explains that because of his father’s death he had to leave school and start working to maintain for the family (mother and brother). Furthermore the killing of his father is in an Afghan context going to create an assumption that he (when he grew older) shall seek revenge over the commander, as a matter of honour. The author however had no such plans, but when he was working with the repair of cars, he was responsible for the death of the driver of the commander A.M.B. This was an accident, however because of the killing of his father this would indeed be considered his attempt to seek revenge and thus he feared for his and his brother’s life. The two brothers then fled to Kabul, but his brother was kidnapped and he had to flee to Herat and from there to Iran. The author stayed in Iran for about 2 years. When he contacted his mother at home, he was told that the commander’s people were searching for him, and his mother had been questioned about his place of living and her hand was broken. He worked in a shop in Iran in an area with many Afghan refugees. One day the commander’s people came to this area and asked about the author’s whereabouts. At that time it was decided that he had to flee to Europe. He arrived in Denmark in December 2011 and applied for asylum.
The complainant then converted to christianity during his stay in Denmark in 2013 and thus fears being killed or tortured on return to Afghanistan, since this is a violation of the Islamic rules in his country of origin. The author officially converted to the christian faith only after the final decision of the Refugee Board. Consequently, he thus has a new asylum motive which has never been considered by the Immigration Service or the Refugee Board. But on June 2, 2014 he was nevertheless rejected by the secretariat of the Refugee Board.
Since the author could not appeal his decision to any other body in Denmark, this is not only a violation of article 13 but also articles 2 and 26. Any other Board decision in the Danish society may be appealed to the ordinary Danish Courts. Thus a complaint was sent to CCPR.
10. December 2019