CCPR/C/133/D/2510/2014 Advance unedited version 2.20 Since 21 November 2018, the author has been registered as disappeared by the Danish Police. The complaint 3.1 The author invokes a violation of articles 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. He submits that States parties are under an obligation not to deport persons who are in a risk of deprivation of their human rights, in this case the right to freedom of expression, including freedom to receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. This also includes the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which includes the freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs. 3.2 The author alleges that his interest in Christianity is manifested with his very distinct tattoo on his arm. He fears persecution from the Iranian authorities if they discover his tattoo. Given his critical views towards the Iranian regime, he now has a sur place asylum claim. His deportation would therefore violate his civil rights protected by article 19 of the Covenant and would place him in severe danger of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, as prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant. 3.3 Finally, the author will be deported to the Islamic Republic of Iran irrespective of the fact that he does not hold a valid Iranian passport, and thus risks being interrogated by the authorities at the airport.16 It can therefore not be excluded that he risks an investigation of his past as a former member of Basij. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 23 August 2017, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits. It stated that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee declare it admissible under article 7, the Covenant would not be violated if the author was returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 4.2 The State party describes the structure, composition and functioning of the Refugee Appeals Board,17 and the legislation that applies to asylum proceedings.18 It then submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility under article 7 of the Covenant, in the absence of substantial grounds for believing that he is in danger of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. This part of the communication is therefore manifestly unfounded and should be declared inadmissible. 4.3 As to the author’s allegations under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant, the State party notes that the author seeks to apply those articles in an extraterritorial manner in his communication. The author makes no allegations of violation of these articles resting on treatment that he has suffered in Denmark, or in an area where Danish authorities are in effective control, or due to the conduct of Danish authorities. The Committee accordingly lacks jurisdiction over any such violations in respect of the State party; hence, this part of the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The State party cannot be held responsible for violations of articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant expected to be committed by another State outside its territory and jurisdiction. 4.4 On the merits, the author has failed to establish that his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate article 7 of the Covenant. Under the Committee’s jurisprudence, States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their 16 17 18 6 In that respect, the author cites Home Office (United Kingdom), Country of Origin Information Report – Iran, 16 January 2013, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/510136952.html, p. 260, and Landinfo, Iran: On Conversion to Christianity, p. 69. Obah Hussein Ahmed v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014), paras. 4.1-4.3. Sections 7 (1) − (3) and 31 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act.