The author H.A. is an ethnic Hazara of the Shia Muslim Afghan citizen, his request for asylum in Denmark was rejected. His father, who owned a shop in Jalriz, as well as three cars, had been subjected to extortion by the Taliban over a period of time after having expressed his favourable views of the Government of Afghanistan and the international forces. The Taliban had also believed that the author’s father was a spy for the authorities but it was not the case. He was merely satisfied with the rebuilding of the country and the development, and had been outspoken about it with the others in his shop. The Taliban had extorted money from the author’s father, and he therefore decided to send the author, the family’s youngest son who was unmarried, abroad for protection.

As his asylum grounds, the author referred to his fear of being kidnapped by the Taliban in case of his return to Afghanistan. In 2011, the Danish Immigration Service rejected the author’s asylum application and the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs refused the author’s application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. The Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision of the Immigration Service.

The author’s deportation from Denmark to Afghanistan would violate his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, as he would be at risk of being killed, kidnapped or raped by the Taliban. The author belongs to the Hazara minority, which is under attack from the Taliban, who are mainly ethnic Pashtuns and persecuted all over the country.

H.A. presented a pleading v. Denmark in violation of the articles 6, 7, 13, 14 of the Covenant.

CCPR took a decision that the removal of the author to Afghanistan would not violate rights under articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant. The Committee recalled its jurisprudence, according to which this provision offers asylum seekers some of the protection afforded under article 14 of the Covenant, but not the right of appeal to judicial bodies. The Committee therefore concluded that the author had failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant, and declared this part of the communication inadmissible.