CCPR/C/132/D/2651/2015 Advance unedited version expressed a negative opinion on her chances of receiving a positive decision. Apart from the latter’s decision, there is no other domestic remedy, as the Aliens Act prohibits an appeal to an ordinary court, despite the crucial matters in asylum procedures. According to the author, this constitutes a fair trial and discrimination problem. The RAB also lacks attributes of a real court, as the meetings remain closed. Additionally, one of the five members is appointed by the Ministry of Justice and that person is usually an employee of that Ministry, which is the superior administrative body to the DIS. Further, the quality of interpretation varies greatly. Finally, no audio recordings have been made available. 5.3 The author notes that the decision by the DIS reads that “We assess that Italy can serve as your first country of asylum, cf. Aliens Act section 7(3)”. The final sentence states that, “Consequently, the Immigration Service has decided that the police can deport you to Italy if you do not leave voluntarily, cf. Aliens Act section 32 a”. Thus, in her appeal, she focused on a return to Italy, where she had been made to live in the streets, contracted tuberculosis and was sexually abused. As Italy is known to lack resources for taking care of refugees, she and her son would be in imminent risk of repeated abuse and exposure to disease. If there was a doubt concerning her statements, the authorities should have requested her files from Sudan and Italy. The RAB accepted her credibility, but decided that she and her son can be removed to Ethiopia. She reiterates that she has made a prima facie case against their removal, whether to Ethiopia or Italy. 5.4 The author notes that the State party does not dispute that the Italian authorities and UNHCR have recognised her refugee status. Given the history of the handling of her case in Denmark, including frustrating alternating decisions after her arrival in Denmark following her escape from Ethiopia as a 16-year-old girl, it would be legally and humanly unfair to remove her to Ethiopia. She reiterates her arguments concerning the risks of such a removal and confirms that she claims that this would also breach article 7 of the Covenant. 5.5 The author notes that in the period leading up to and about three weeks after her father’s death, she was only 16 years old. Her mother was interrogated several times after her escape concerning her and her siblings’ whereabouts. She became of age in Sudanand started to express support for her family’s cause. However, her refugee camp was attacked by the military, in cooperation between the Ethiopian and Sudanese authorities. Many Oromo refugees were arrested, but she managed to escape. She fears being imprisoned, subjected to ill-treatment, and losing her life like her father because of his activities and her own public loyalty to the OLF. She would be an obvious target, as she is no longer a child, and would be without family protection. Moreover, she stated in her interview that the situation for Oromo people was worse than when she left and that people were executed simply for being OLF members. If returned, her illegal escape would become evident, and her registration and activities in Sudancould become evident given the cooperation between the Ethiopian and Sudanese authorities and in light of her mother’s interrogations. Even if she was not in personal contact with the Sudanese authorities, it is still likely that she was recognised and/or registered because she was a frequent performer in public events against the Ethiopian government and the latter closely cooperates with the Sudanese authorities. Furthermore, the sources cited by the State party mention that “the Ethiopian government’s response to the Oromia protests has resulted in scores dead and a rapidly rising risk of greater bloodshed”. 7 She submits that, given her struggle of many years to escape the oppression of Oromo people, she should be given the benefit of the doubt concerning the question whether her activities have been registered by the Ethiopian authorities. State party’s additional observations 6.1 By note verbale of 20 February 2017, the State party provided additional observations, noting that the author’s comments contain no new information on the situation in Ethiopia. The State party observes that article 13 of the Covenant does not contain a right to appeal8 or to a court hearing.9 The author’s case has been examined at two instances, and essential new information may give rise to a reopening of the proceedings. Decisions of the RAB, which is 7 8 9 6 Human Rights Watch, “Ethiopia: Lethal Force Against Protestors”, 18 December 2015. Mr. X and Ms. X. V. Denmark (CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012), para. 6.3. Maroufidou v. Sweden (CCPR/C/12/D/58/1979).