CCPR/C/112/D/2126/2011 Appendices Appendix I [Original: English] Joint opinion of Committee members Christine Chanet, Yuval Shany and Konstantine Vardzelashvili (dissenting) 1. We are unable to join the majority on the Committee in finding a violation of article 7 of the Covenant in the circumstances of the case. 2. As it appears form the case file, the courts of the State Party addressed on multiple occasions (on 25 May 2005, 6 September 2010, 9 December 2010, 14 March 2011, 23 January 2013) the author’s claim that his life would be at risk if he were deported to Afghanistan and found those claims to be unsubstantiated. As a result, the State party refused to grant the author permanent asylum and in 2009 revoked his temporary asylum status, thus rendering him eligible for future deportation. The State party did not challenge the author’s claim that the courts that had reviewed his case failed to consider his refugee sur place argument (i.e., the argument that even though he left Afghanistan for economic reasons, he would nonetheless be placed at risk should he be compelled to return there now). We therefore agree with the substantive holding of the majority that, if the State party were to deport the author now without considering his refugee sur place argument, it would violate the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under the Covenant. 3. Still, we question the ripeness of the communication, and believe it should have been declared inadmissible for the following reasons. 4. The State party has maintained in its submissions to the Committee that no decision has actually been made to deport the author. Furthermore, it has acknowledged that, on account of his family relations with Russian citizens, the author is eligible to regularize his legal status in the Russian Federation, and has offered the author the opportunity to apply for a temporary residence permit, which would lead, through a simplified procedure, to his obtaining permanent residence status in the State party. That right was recognized by three different courts – the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (in its decision of 14 March 2011 following a supervisory appeal), the City Court of St. Petersburg (in its decision of 6 September 2010) and the District Court of St. Petersburg (in its decision of 25 May 2006). It should also be noted that the District Court of St Petersburg specifically held that the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the European Convention on Human Rights) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child all preclude the author’s imminent deportation. The District Court therefore granted the author temporary asylum and instructed him to apply for permanent residence in the Russian Federation. To date, the author has not applied for permanent residence, citing the fact that that would entail his relocation from St. Petersburg to Kirovsk (where his wife is registered as a resident). 5. While the specific conditions attached by the State party to applications for temporary or permanent residence – submission of an application in Kirovsk or a short-term exit from the Russian Federation – may inconvenience the author and may even give rise to certain justified concerns on his part, there is nothing in the evidence before us that would suggest that the State party has decided to deport the author in contravention of its nonrefoulement obligations under the Covenant. We are therefore unable to agree with the 13