CCPR/C/125/D/2494/2014 had no right to appeal to a Danish court, it is not possible for an asylum seeker in Denmark to appeal a decision on an asylum application to a Danish court because the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board are final. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 In his comments of 15 April 2016, the author alleges a violation of articles 2, 6, 7, 13 and 26 of the Covenant.16 After the Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures decided not to issue a request for interim measures, the author reports that he has been deported and imprisoned in the Islamic Republic of Iran but is today still alive. He then welcomes a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of F.G. v. Sweden, where it was made clear that due to the absolute nature of the non-refoulement principle, Member States cannot deny reopening asylum cases when they are informed about a new sur place motive.17 In that case, the Swedish authorities refused to reopen the applicant’s asylum case because there was no new relevant information, even though the applicant had informed the authorities that he had converted to Christianity and thus feared persecution if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Court found that, by ignoring this new information about his new asylum motive, Sweden violated article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. For the author, his situation is similar. 5.2 The author then insists that the decision of 28 July 2014 of the Refugee Appeals Board was not made by the five members of the Board, but was signed by a person who was part of the legal staff of the Board. The “draft decision” was reviewed by the Chair and accepted before it was transmitted to the author. It was not therefore the Board as such which made the decision to reject the author’s new sur place motive. The author should have benefited from a new oral hearing, which would have allowed him to explain his new faith and reply to questions from the five Board members before they decided on his request for asylum. 5.3 The Board decision not to reopen proceedings is thus in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The author’s conversion has never been examined by the Immigration Service, hence the decision on his sur place motive was not a decision on appeal, because the Board was the first and also the last domestic authority which decided on his right to have his case reopened. 5.4 The author’s right under article 13 of the Covenant has been violated because he has only been entitled to an administrative procedure, without the possibility of appealing the Board decision before the Danish courts. Also, he did not have a chance to argue his case in front of the five members of the Board. Furthermore, since all other decisions by any board under Danish law can be appealed within the Danish judicial system, the author has been subjected to discrimination under articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant. According to section 63 of the Constitution of Denmark, all administrative decisions, including Board decisions, can be appealed before the courts. 5.5 Finally, the author refers to a number of cases before the Committee in which the State party decided to reopen the case and granted asylum, 18 and concludes that the Board decision of 28 July 2014 is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. Additional submission from the State party 6.1 On 2 September 2016, the State party provided further observations to the Committee. It first observed that the author claimed that he had been imprisoned in the Islamic Republic of Iran after his deportation, but that this information appeared to be entirely unsubstantiated in the absence of any additional information on the time of the alleged imprisonment or any other details of such circumstances. The State party therefore finds no reason to consider this matter. 16 17 18 There is no further mention of article 14. European Court of Human Rights, F.G. v. Sweden, application No. 43611/11, judgment of 23 March 2016. The author’s counsel refers to other similar cases that he has brought against Denmark, which were submitted to the Committee and were subsequently discontinued. 7