The case involves A.A.H., a national of Somalia born in 1977, belonging to the Bagadi minority. A.A.H. fled from Qoryooley, Shabelle Hoose, Somalia, due to persecution by the militant group Al-Shabaab. He arrived in Denmark in 2013 and was granted residence status based on the general human rights situation in Somalia.

A.A.H. owned a small clothing store in Qoryooley. In 2011, Al-Shabaab demanded monthly payments and restricted his business activities. In 2013, unable to continue payments, he was beaten and threatened with death by Al-Shabaab. Fearing for his life, he fled Somalia with financial help from his father. His family dispersed: his father fled to a refugee camp, while his wife and children went to Kenya

In 2018, the Danish Immigration Service withdrew his residence permit, citing improved conditions in Qoryooley and inconsistencies in his narrative. The Refugee Appeals Board upheld this decision in 2019.
A.A.H. claimed that returning to Somalia would expose him to a real risk of torture and ill-treatment, violating articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
He argued that he would be persecuted by Al-Shabaab, viewed as a spy or traitor due to his status as a returnee from a Western country, and forced to pay taxes or join the militia.
Denmark argued that:
– The Danish authorities thoroughly examined A.A.H.’s claims.
– The general conditions in Qoryooley had improved, and A.A.H. did not face a specific, individual risk of persecution.
– A.A.H. had not substantiated his claims adequately.

Committee’s Considerations
The Human Rights Committee noted that the domestic authorities had thoroughly assessed A.A.H.’s situation and found no specific risk of persecution upon his return.
The Committee observed that A.A.H. did not explain why the domestic assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.
The Committee emphasized the continuing responsibility of the State party to consider the current situation in Somalia but found that A.A.H. failed to substantiate his claim of irreparable harm under articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR.

Decision
The Committee declared the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol, as A.A.H. did not sufficiently substantiate his claims. The decision was communicated to both Denmark and A.A.H.
The Human Rights Committee concluded that Denmark’s assessment of A.A.H.’s asylum claim was thorough and not arbitrary. They found no substantial evidence that A.A.H. would face irreparable harm if returned to Somalia, and thus, his communication was deemed inadmissible.