CCPR/C/112/D/2243/2013 that the author risked being subjected to double punishment upon his return to Afghanistan. The court found that the information about the author’s marriage, during his incarceration, to the woman with whom he had had a relationship since 2002 could not be considered as such a material change in his circumstances that the expulsion decision against him should be revoked. Finally, the court found that the sentence of imprisonment for five years and six months for robbery must be accorded such decisive weight that the proportionality test made under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights could not lead to revocation of the expulsion decision. By order of 22 January 2008, the Eastern High Court upheld the order of the Copenhagen City Court for the reasons stated by the City Court. The author appealed the decision to the Appeals Board of the Supreme Court, which, on 11 June 2008, rejected the appeal. 2.8 On 24 July 2007, the author was released on parole and subsequently remanded in custody, pursuant to section 35(1)(i) of the Aliens Act, to ensure his presence until the expulsion could be enforced. On 6 February 2008, the author was released and accommodated at the Sandholm Centre, which functions as a departure centre for refused asylum seekers and persons expelled by court order. The author was ordered to report to the National Police at the Sandholm Centre once a week. 2.9 On 26 February 2008, the author reported to the National Police and stated that he did not want to cooperate in a voluntary departure from Denmark. The author was informed that the National Police would recommend to the Danish Immigration Service that a maintenance allowance scheme be set up pursuant to section 42a(10)(ii) (now section 42a(11)(ii)) of the Aliens Act. 2.10 On 14 April 2010, the District Court of Glostrup convicted the author of a criminal offence on the grounds that he and his two brothers had deprived a person of liberty, seriously assaulted him, threatened him and exercised duress against him using a loaded pistol and that, on another occasion, he and his brothers had threatened another person. The author was sentenced to imprisonment for four years and nine months. The sentence included the unserved balance of 670 days from the release on parole on 24 July 2007. On 26 August 2010, the Eastern High Court upheld the judgement delivered by the District Court of Glostrup. 2.11 On 28 October 2011, the National Police sent a request to the Afghan authorities for permission for the author to enter Afghanistan. On 14 January 2013, the National Police received acceptance from the Afghan authorities via the Danish embassy in Kabul, confirming that the author may be present at the Afghan border control for the purpose of identification, if identification on the basis of written documentation is not possible. 2.12 On 8 April 2013, the author was interviewed by the National Police on the matter of his return to Afghanistan, and he stated that he did not want to cooperate in a voluntary return to Afghanistan as he had a wife and children in Denmark. The author was subsequently informed that he would be presented to the border control authorities in Afghanistan as soon as possible. On the same day, the author was brought before the District Court of Hillerød and remanded in custody, pursuant to section 35(1)(i) of the Aliens Act, to ensure his presence until the expulsion decision could be enforced. The term of his custody on remand has been extended regularly, pursuant to section 35(1)(i) of the Aliens Act. 2.13 On 17 April 2013, the author’s counsel was informed by telephone that the Afghan authorities had accepted that the author be presented to the Afghan border control authorities at Kabul International Airport for the purpose of final identification, and that the author would be brought back to Denmark if he could not be identified at such presentation. The author’s counsel was also informed that the author’s return to Afghanistan was 4