CCPR/C/119/D/2530/2015 Annex Joint opinion of Committee members Yuval Shany and Christof Heyns (dissenting) 1. We regret that we are unable to join the majority on the Committee in finding that, in deciding to deport the authors, Denmark would, if it implemented the decision, violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 2. In paragraph 8.2 of the Views, the Committee recalls that: “it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice”. Despite this, the majority of the Committee rejected the factual conclusion of the Immigration Service and the Refugees Appeals Board that the authors failed to establish grounds for asylum because their allegations about their persecution and ill-treatment in Egypt lacked credibility (para. 4.4), and because the general situation of Coptic Christians in Egypt had improved in recent years (para. 4.7). Instead, the majority criticized the State party for failing to “adequately examine the authors’ claims concerning the reasons for which they fled Egypt” and considered that “under the totality of the circumstances, the authors have presented compelling evidence to indicate that their return to Egypt would be accompanied by a personal and real risk of irreparable harm” (para. 8.5). We disagree with the analysis offered by the majority. All of the allegations raised by the authors were thoroughly considered by the Immigration Service and the Board and rejected as lacking in credibility because of serious inconsistencies in the authors’ statements (para. 4.4), and the improbability of key elements in their version of events that seemed to the Danish authorities as “designed for the occasion”.1 For example, the Board did not accept as facts assertions by the authors that the activities of F were perceived in Egypt as missionary work; nor did it accept that F was detained and tortured, and that the two authors were at particular risk in Egypt prior to their departure therefrom. The authors also failed to persuasively explain in their submissions why they would be unable to receive protection from the authorities upon their return to Egypt. Hence, we do not find in the record before us any reason to regard the conclusions of the Immigration Service and Board as clearly arbitrary, manifestly erroneous or a denial of justice. As a result, we are of the view that the majority on the Committee failed to properly apply the standard of review it set out to apply, and did not follow the long-held position, according to which the Committee does not serve as “a fourth instance competent to re-evaluate findings of fact”.2 3. In past cases in which the decision of State organs to deport an individual was found by the Committee to run contrary to the Covenant, the Committee sought to base its position on inadequacies in the domestic decision-making process, such as failure to properly take into account available evidence or the specific rights of the author under the Covenant,3 serious procedural flaws in the conduct of the domestic review proceedings,4 or the inability of the State party to provide a reasonable justification for its decision.5 In the present case, the majority on the Committee points only to one possible procedural flaw in the asylum proceedings in Denmark, namely the alleged failure of the State party to refer F to a medical examination. We disagree with this aspect of the majority’s analysis as well. 1 2 3 4 5 Letter to the authors dated 26 June 2014 from the Immigration Service, p. 3. See, e.g., communication No. 1138/2002, Röder and Röder v. Germany, decision adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6. See e.g., communication No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, at paras. 8.4-8.6. See, e.g., communication No. 1908/2009, X v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 March 2014, para. 11.5. See, e.g., communication No. 1222/2003, Byahuranga v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, paras. 11.3-11.4. 9