CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 5.15 The State party refers to the Supreme Court decision of 30 May 2011 in case No. 194/2009,12 which concerned a review, under section 50a of the Aliens Act, and asserts that “(…) it appears from the Supreme Court decision that, in cases where several years have passed since the review under section 50 of the Aliens Act, as in the present case, the alien will be entitled to have the (…) expulsion decision reviewed again pursuant to section 50 of the Aliens Act”. The State party indicates that the author has not requested a second review. 5.16 The State party maintains that the proposed return of the author to his country of origin is the result of careful consideration of all factors concerned, in accordance with full and fair procedures, under article 13 of the Covenant, in which the author was represented by counsel. The nature of the offences committed by the author in the present case are very serious, and his family life was not established until after his former spouse knew about the offences and the expulsion decision. Furthermore, the author committed further offences in the period after the expulsion decision. Against that background, the State party submits that the Danish rules are in compliance with Denmark’s international obligations, including article 13 of the Covenant. Enforcement of the expulsion decision 5.17 Regarding enforcement of the expulsion decision, the State party argues that section 30(1) of the Aliens Act, states that an alien who is not entitled to stay in Denmark must leave the country. If the alien does not leave Denmark voluntarily, the police must make arrangements for his/her departure, as set out in section 30(2) of the Aliens Act. 5.18 The State party confirms that the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding concluded on 18 October 2004 between Afghanistan, the Government of Denmark and UNHCR concerning the return to Afghanistan of Afghan nationals without lawful residence in Denmark is still in force. The Memorandum of Understanding requires that the Afghan nationals be identified prior to return. The details of the cooperation between the Danish and Afghan authorities regarding the identification of and the procedure for identifying Afghan nationals have been laid down jointly by the relevant authorities in Afghanistan and Denmark. If identification cannot be made on the basis of written documentation, identification can be made by presentation to the authorities at border control. In this case, the staff from the Identity Checking Unit (IDCU) of the Afghan Ministry of Interior will meet the relevant alien and the escorting officers at border control at Kabul International Airport for the purpose of identification. If the relevant alien is not identified as an Afghan national, the alien will return to Denmark with the escorting Danish officers. 5.19 The State party notes that the IDCU has confirmed that the author may be presented at border control for the purposes of identification, if identification on the basis of written documentation is not possible. On 15 January 2013, the IDCU informed the Danish embassy that the author had not yet been confirmed as being an Afghan national. 5.20 Finally, the State party notes that the author is currently remanded in custody to ensure his presence until the expulsion can be enforced, and it requests the Committee to consider the communication as soon as possible. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 6.1 In his comments, dated 10 and 24 October 2013, the author emphasizes that, pursuant to the test under section 50 of the Aliens Act, an alien likely to be expelled is entitled to only one judicial review of the expulsion order. The author disputes the State 12 10 See Danish Weekly Law Reports 2011, p. 2358 ff.