CCPR/C/118/D/2204/2012 Chinese authorities since she had not practised Falun Gong in public after she had signed the declaration that Falun Gong was a harmful movement (see para. 5.5 above), the staff member of the secretariat asserted that Falun Gong was not the author’s religion but only a way of improving her health. In that context, she reiterates her initial claim that asylum seekers should be granted the right to appeal against the decisions of the Board to a higher judicial instance, as is already the case, for example, in England, Germany and Norway. She also argues in great detail that the legal system for asylum determination in Denmark is contrary to the Covenant and that there are significant shortcomings in the composition and functioning of the Board. 5.7 The author argues that the State party is discriminating against her on the ground of her national origin as far as the right to due process under article 14 of the Covenant and the right to the equal protection of the law under article 26 of the Covenant are concerned. According to section 63 of the Danish Constitution, any decision of a public body can be invoked by the citizens before a court. The only exemption from this rule is the group of asylum seekers, who are, as is the author, discriminated against in this regard. By way of example, the author refers to a hypothetical negative decision of the Danish Immigration Service on an application for family reunification submitted by a Danish national and a foreign spouse that can be appealed first to the Immigration Appeals Board and then to the ordinary Danish courts. 5.8 The author further argues that her deportation to China would result in a violation by the State party of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, as she fears that she will be tortured again and possibly killed on her return because of her affiliation with Falun Gong. In that context, she states that a large number of female members of Falun Gong have been killed by the Chinese authorities.7 The author argues that she will only be able to live in China if she continues to hide her religious beliefs and not practise her religion in public. She submits therefore that the test should be what would happen to her if she returned to China and openly practised Falun Gong. If such open practice leads to persecution in the country of origin, then the deportation should not take place. Furthermore, as the author is already known to the Chinese authorities from the time of her imprisonment and since the Danish authorities were in contact with the Chinese authorities in November 2012 with a view to deporting her, she fears that she will be detained on arrival in Beijing by the airport police and subjected to interrogation and torture. 5.9 As to the State party’s arguments in relation to the author’s claims under article 14 of the Covenant (see paras. 4.13-4.15), the author submits that the Committee should use the opportunity presented by the present communication to conclude that asylum is a civil right covered by article 14 of the Covenant and to establish a violation thereof, since the author is not allowed to appeal the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board of 15 August 2012 and 16 November 2012 to the ordinary Danish courts. 5.10 The author submits that, although articles 18 and 27 of the Covenant may not have extraterritorial effect on their own, seen together with the principle of non-refoulement in article 7 of the Covenant they provide the standard for the kind of religious activities protected under the Covenant. In other words, the right to freedom of religion, together with the right not to be subjected to torture or inhuman treatment, are among the rights covered by the Covenant. The author, who had performed religious activities covered by articles 18 and 27 of the Covenant, was detained and tortured by the Chinese authorities on a number of occasions because of her affiliation with Falun Gong and eventually prevented from exercising her religious freedom when she was forced to sign the declaration that Falun Gong was a harmful movement (see para. 5.5 above). She argues, therefore, that her right to 7 8 The author refers to the report compiled by the Falun Gong Human Rights Working Group “The Falun Gong report 2003. The Chinese Government’s State terrorism against woman and children”.