CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012 three of four individuals who had visited the authors. 2 Mr. X submits that militants suspected him of leaking the information to the Federal Security Service and that a number of Wahhabi sympathizers had been working in the Federal Security Service. In addition, the authors also feared that they would be suspected as collaborators of militants by the Russian authorities, since the latter had their identity papers. Between April 2006 and 12 June 2007, the authors stayed in hiding. They then left the Russian Federation in order to go to Denmark. 2.5 The authors arrived in Denmark on 18 June 2007 without valid travel documents and applied for asylum on 21 June 2007. On 19 December 2007, the Danish Immigration Service rejected their asylum application and refused to grant them a residence permit under paragraph 7 of the Aliens Act. On 29 April 2008, the Refugee Board heard the appeal and, on that basis, upheld the decision of the Immigration Service. The Refugee Board examined the authors’ claims that, in case of their return to the Russian Federation, they would be at risk of: (a) being subjected to attacks by the militants owing to the fact that they had reported on their activities to the Federal Security Service in April 2006; (b) being suspected by the Russian authorities as collaborators of the militants; and (c) being surrendered to militants by the Russian authorities because of the collaboration between the two. The Refugee Board considered that the authors’ explanation that in April 2006 they had been visited by militants with the aim of recruiting Mr. X was implausible and contrived. The Refugee Board found it unlikely that the militants would disclose the details of the planned terrorist attack to Mr. X, given that he and the other members of his family had previously refused to join them. The Refugee Board also did not consider plausible the explanations of Mr. X that, on the one hand, he revealed the details of the planned terrorist attack to the Federal Security Service, while, on the other hand, the authors feared being surrendered to the militants by the Russian authorities because of the collaboration between the two. Consequently, the Refugee Board concluded that Mr. X had not been exposed to attacks or abuse by either the militants or the Russian authorities since the incident that took place in 2003. 2.6 On 30 June 2008, the authors requested that the asylum proceedings of the authors to be reopened. Mr. X argued that details of the planned terrorist attack by the militants were disclosed to him for the following reasons: (a) he had known two of the individuals who visited him in April 2006 since his childhood; (b) his father was related to the founder of Karachayevsk, the family name was respected and his participation in the Wahhabi activities would be an “example” to other young people; (c) he was a trained soldier; and (d) the militants threatened to kill him and his wife if they refused to cooperate, and their identity documents were taken away. The authors also submit that they could not seek protection from the Russian authorities because the local police was infiltrated by the militants, and out of fear of being suspected by the Russian authorities as collaborators of the militants. 2.7 On 19 June 2009, the Refugee Appeals Board suspended the authors’ time limit for departure until further notice. For the above reasons and since all the other family members have been granted asylum in Denmark and in France, 3 on 20 April 2010, the Refugee Board decided to reopen the case and the authors were allowed to stay in Denmark while their case was pending with the Refugee Board. 2.8 On 15 April 2012, the Refugee Appeals Board re-heard the appeal and, on 15 June 2012, the Refugee Board issued a decision concluding that there was no reason to make a 2 3 No further details provided. The positive outcome of the asylum application in France of the first author’s brother became known shortly after the first decision to turn down the first author’s asylum application in Denmark. 5