CAT/C/57/D/593/2014 2.6 In January 2007, I.M. returned to Canada and applied for the family reunification with her husband. In the same year, the second-instance court in Galati upheld the complainants’ conviction and sentence. According to the complainants, M.C. exerted influence on the appeal court as well. In August 2007, I.M. travelled from Canada back to Romania, as V.Z.’s grandmother was very sick. The grandmother died in December 2007. I.M. claims that, in the meantime, she received a notice that her husband could reside in Canada with her. The Embassy of Canada in Romania, however, refused to issue him a visa to enter Canada. 2.7 The complainants submit that, in 2008, a third-instance appeal court quashed the lower court’s sentence and ordered a retrial. This was possible because at that time M.C. had resigned from his political party and was unable to exert political influence on that court. In 2010, the Court of Appeals of the city of Galati acquitted the complainants of all charges. M.C. did not hold any political position and wasn’t able to have an impact on the court. After the acquittal, the complainants wanted to depart for Canada; however, the prosecution appealed the acquittal and they had to remain in Romania. 2.8 On 2 March 2011, the Supreme Court of Romania convicted the complainants of fraud and sentenced them to 7 and 8 years of imprisonment, respectively. The complainants claim that a couple of judges in the Supreme Court were involved in corruption scandals in Romania. At the time of conviction, M.C. held the position of Secretary of the Ministry of Interior and therefore could again exert pressure on judges. They claim that the new conviction was based on the same evidence brought before the court that had acquitted them. The prosecution did not provide any new evidence. Their case was covered in the media, and it was claimed that M.C. was involved. They also refer to the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, in which the Court concluded that Romania had failed in its duty to ensure the right to a fair trial. 2.9 The complainants also submit that on 3 March 2011, a day after their verdict was announced, they fled to Denmark. They travelled to Denmark without holding valid passports. They immediately started checking options on how to travel to Canada from there and contacted the Embassy of Canada in Copenhagen, which invited them to visit a consulate but refused to issue a visa. They travelled to Berlin and met with officials of the consulate of Canada there with the aim of getting a travel document based on the residence approval V.Z. had received in 2007. 2.10 However, the consulate of Canada in Berlin also refused to issue them a visa and requested them to come back with valid passports. The complainants were not able to obtain passports through the Embassy of Romania, as they would have been arrested if they had approached the Embassy. As M.C. was still holding the position of Secretary at the Ministry of Interior, they decided to hide in Denmark under different identities with no legal status. This lasted for two years. 2.11 The complainants claim that, on 2 January 2013, they were arrested by the police based on an international arrest warrant issued against them by Romania. They informed the police that they were fleeing the authorities of Romania after the conclusion of an unfair trial against them. During their arrest, they sought police protection and stated their wish to be taken to Canada and not to stay in Denmark. They were interviewed separately by immigration service officers on 30 and 31 January 2013, and again in February 2013. 2.12 Around that time, the extradition request of Romania was rejected by Denmark. The reason given was that the authorities of Romania could not show in their request for extradition that the complainants had been present during all the judicial proceedings that had led to their conviction on 2 March 2011, and that it was not possible from the evidence before the court to determine the precise extent of their participation in the trial. 3