CCPR/C/121/D/2594/2015 The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that their removal to Afghanistan would expose them to a risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors submit that K.S. could face death or torture owing to his disaffiliation from Islam. K.S. notes that he was raised in a secular family — although M.S. considers herself a Muslim — and that his father’s and brother’s executions and his own experience of having been beaten by the Taliban as a boy for not being able to recite the Qur’an reaffirmed his repudiation of Islam. He has rejected any religious affiliation and considers himself an agnostic. He is not an atheist and has no adversity to religion, only to the way it influences politics and society. He notes that, according to the 2013 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan, 9 persons perceived as contravening sharia law, including religious minorities, converts from Islam or persons accused of blasphemy, may be in need for international protection. He notes that converting from Islam to another religion is deemed apostasy and those found guilty may be given three days to recant or face death. He claims that, by analogy, atheists also face persecution since atheism in Afghanistan equates to apostasy. 10 He would therefore be at risk if he chose not to conceal his views and beliefs in Afghanistan. 3.3 With regard to M.S., she would face a risk of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned owing to her status as an extremely vulnerable individual, i.e., a single woman with health issues. She explains that she would be left alone in an extremely unforgiving environment if returned to Afghanistan, since her son would not be able to care for her and support her financially at the same time. In addition, her health has deteriorated during her stay in Denmark. She is 66 years old and has been diagnosed with depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic psychosis, dementia and personality change after catastrophic experiences. 3.4 Finally, the authors claim that they are both at risk of having their rights violated if returned to Afghanistan owing to general conditions for returnees in the country. They note that the general situation for Afghan returnees is precarious, in the light of security issues and the lack of basic services, together with the need for a well-established network in order to ensure security and integrity. 11 State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 In its submissions dated 7 October 2015, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible or, alternatively, without merit. The State party also describes the proceedings before the Refugee Appeals Board. 12 4.2 The State party submits that, on 15 April 2015, the authors once again requested that the Refugee Appeals Board reopen their asylum proceedings. By its decision of 20 July 2015, the Board rejected that request. The Board considered that no new substantial information on the authors’ conflicts in their country of origin had been submitted to that already assessed by it. It also considered that K.S.’s Facebook activities and posts had been limited and had not attracted any particular attention and therefore did not render it probable that he would risk persecution if returned to Afghanistan. It noted, in that regard, that K.S. had been contacted by one person only, whose position in Afghanistan and relation to K.S. seemed completely unsubstantiated, who had asked him to withdraw some information and return to Islam or else he would report him. With regard to the alleged 9 10 11 12 4 Available from http://unhcr.org.ua/attachments/article/330/EG_AFG_06.08.2013.pdf. The author cites the “Freedom of Thought Report 2014” by the International Humanist and Ethical Union. The authors note that, on 26 February 2015, the Afghan embassy in Oslo sent a note verbale to Norway calling for a halt in all deportations to Afghanistan “because the number of Afghan deportees had increased and considering the facilities and conditions of the country, it had caused them not to receive the required support and their human rights to be violated”. See communication No. 2379/2014, O.H.A. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, paras. 4.1– 4.3.