Last updated on June 29th, 2023 at 05:16 am

Concerning Mr. A.H.J vs Denmark for violation of article 6 or 7, 13, and 26 of CCPR.

The author’s original asylum motive was that he feared being killed by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan. He had been abducted and detained by three people linked to the Taliban, as the Taliban wanted to train the applicant and some other boys to perform suicide attacks.

The author applied for asylum which was rejected in 2011, but because the author arrived in Denmark as a minor, the case was reopened on the grounds of long lasting ties with the Danish society.

The author had been baptised, and based the new asylum motive on this. The Refugee Board reopened the case instead of the case being reopened at the Danish Immigration Service. This is a violation of the rules of fair trial, because after the decision by the Refugee Board it is not possible to appeal the decision. Hence, the Refugee Board is the first and only instance to consider the asylum motive. It is important to differentiate between the two issues (the first and the second asylum case), the motive should therefore have the possibility to go through both the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Board. All of the author’s comments are related to the fact that he converted from Islam to Christianity by being baptised. Nevertheless, the Board decided that the author’s conversion was not genuine.  

Consequently, he is thus treated in a different manner compared to those asylum seekers, who may have been baptised before the interview. The author would have had the possibility to appeal the decision if the case was at the Immigration Service first. This differential treatment is unreasonable that just because the author decided to be baptised after the first Board decision in 2011, he is now being ‘punished’ by the Refugee Board by having only one chance and no appeal. Thus a complaint was sent to CCPR.

However, the Danish authorities decided to reopen the case. This time the author was granted a residence permit and was no longer at risk of deportation. Thus the case was discontinued at the Human Rights Committee.