CCPR/C/117/D/2379/2014 Annex II Individual opinion of Committee member Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (dissenting) 1. As in the case of Jasin et al v. Denmark (communication No. 2360/2014) I find myself once more compelled to dissent from the views of the majority on the Committee. 2. The principles applied by the Committee in dealing with communications from refugees alleging violations of article 7 of the Covenant if they were to be deported either to the country of origin or to the country of first asylum are clearly set out in paragraph 13.3 of the decision of the majority. However, one cannot help noting that the Committee, in exercising an almost quasi-judicial function in its examination of communications, may find itself in a situation where it becomes an appellate instance on facts. Actually the assessment of risk of a personal and irreparable harm is based on the factual circumstances surrounding a particular case, for example, in the present case, the situation in which the alleged victims would find themselves were they to be deported to Italy. The Refugee Appeals Board in the State party is being taxed with having made an arbitrary appreciation of the facts concerning risk and in misapplying the provisions of the Covenant, whereas the Board may be better placed, with all the materials at its disposal, to judge the seriousness of the situation in order to reach a reasonable conclusion. Does the Committee have extraneous elements or information on which to rely? It does not seem so. The reproach made to the State party is a failure to take into due consideration the special vulnerability of the author and her four children. Has the State party made an error of judgment in applying the provisions of the Covenant which has resulted in a denial of justice? They have not in fact made any error of interpretation in applying the provisions of the Covenant. 3. Ultimately, the above situation gives rise to a difficulty in terms of the remedies recommended by the majority of the Committee. In many cases of deportation the case is remitted to the authorities of the State party for reconsideration of the request for asylum and the need to obtain assurances from the country of first asylum (see Jasin). After sending the case to be reconsidered by the Refugee Appeals Board, the State party usually claims that it has complied with the Views of the Committee, whether or not the outcome is decided in favour of the author of the Communication. That course of action provides a leeway to the State party to re-examine the case and grants it the possibility to come to exactly the same conclusion that its immigration authorities had reached in the first instance. That may result in a virtual ineffectiveness of the remedies recommended by the Committee. Probably the wiser course would be to stop at a finding of violation without a request for reconsideration by the State party, thus ensuring a “genuine” higher rate of compliance with the Views of the Committee. Subsequently, when drawing up its report on follow-up to Views on communications, the Committee would have a better picture of State parties’ compliance with its Views. 4. As far as the present case is concerned, however much sympathy one may have regarding the sad plight of refugees, certain rules have to be applied and certain considerations borne in mind by the authorities of the State party when assessing applications for asylum. The author has two grown-up daughters and two minor daughters, who joined her in Italy — although the author claimed she was suffering hardship in that country — and who stayed only for five days in Italy. They thereafter moved to Denmark to seek asylum there. She failed to substantiate in what way Italy had not been able to provide assistance to her and to show that she and her family would suffer irreparable harm in the country of first asylum where three able-bodied adults should be able to look for work to fund themselves. The State party and its immigration authorities gave due weight to all the 19