Concerning Ms. R.S.A.A. vs Denmark for violation of articles 1 and 2 (d), read in conjunction with article 2 (c) and (f), and article 15 (4) of CEDAW.

The applicant is a stateless Palestinian raised in a refugee camp near Damascus. She has held a Jordanian passport since her marriage to a Jordanian national and resided in Jordan with her husband and family. She fled Jordan with her two daughters because her and her daughters were subject to threats and abuse from her husband and his family. The abuse escalated when the author opposed the forced marriage of her then 20-year-old daughter to a much older man. When a 35-year-old man asked to marry the couple’s middle daughter, who was 15 at the time, the author decided to flee to Denmark. The author fears that her husband will kill her and their daughter.

The Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board rejected her application as they noted that her statements were inconsistent. The Committee notes that the Board should have undertaken an individualized assessment of the risk that the applicant and her daughters would face if they were forcibly to Jordan. The Committee notes with concern that patriarchal attitudes are on the rise within State authorities and society. As such, the Committee found that a forced return would amount to a breach of articles 2 (d) (e) and (f) and has recommended that the State reopen the applicant’s asylum case. Following the criticism, the Refugee Board decided to resume the examination of the case. On March 4, 2020, the Refugee Board upheld its previous decision, thereby affirming the decision of the Immigration Service.