Concerning Mr. F.A vs Denmark for violation of articles 6, 7 and 13 of CCPR.

The complainant arrived in Denmark in 2011. He worked for the Ministry of Labour, Social affairs, Martyrs and Disabled in Afghanistan. The applicant was involved in delivering humanitarian aid. The applicant’s task was to cover the seven districts of Logar province and go out to the areas where there had been Taliban attacks. When the applicant took out in the districts, it was with a driver and between ten and twelve policemen. The police were there because it was necessary protection when they move into potentially dangerous areas. One day the applicant received a phone call from the Taliban and they threatened him. When the applicant informed his boss, the boss contacted the police and the police stated that they would protect the applicant in his office and workplace but they could not provide him protection at his home or elsewhere. The applicant subsequently received several threat calls. The applicant also received 3 written threats. When the applicant approached the police for further protection, they refused. Thus the applicant fled to Denmark and applied for asylum.

The Immigration Service rejected the application for asylum and the Refugee board upheld that decision on the 21 September 2015. The Refugee Board found that the author had explained divergently whether he was in contact with the police, and whether the police would help him. In other words the Danish authorities are in no way rejecting, that the author was an employee with the Ministry in Afghanistan working in his home area of Longar. But due to changes in his statements the Board rejected his asylum motive, as they found it fabricated to the occasion and ill-founded.

The Committee considers that, in the light of the available information regarding the author’s personal circumstances, the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.