CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 rejected F.M.’s asylum application on 15 August 2012,5 and R.M.’s application on 17 May 2013.6 2.3 By two decisions of 22 October 2013, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decisions made by the Immigration Service. It deemed the authors’ explanations on certain points to be divergent, and implausible and fabricated for the occasion. In particular, it noted their divergent statements as to the timing of their sexual relations and, taking into account the relevant background information on Afghanistan, it considered it unlikely that the authors had sexual intercourse at F.M.’s house. In these circumstances, the Board held that the documents produced by R.M. on the circumstances of his brother’s death had no evidentiary value. 2.4 On 1 September 2015, the authors sought to have their case reopened. They maintained their previous statements and explained that some of the errors regarding the dates were due to the fact that F.M. is illiterate. They also submitted that they had had contacted an Afghan attorney, who confirmed the high risk for them if they returned to Afghanistan.7 2.5 On 3 June 2016, the Refugee Appeals Board refused to reopen the case because the authors had not demonstrated a risk of degrading treatment or punishment if they were sent back to Afghanistan. The complaint 3.1 Denmark would violate the authors’ rights under articles 6, 7, 17 and 23 of the Covenant by deporting them to Afghanistan, where they fear for their lives. F.M. fears being stoned to death for having had an extramarital sexual relationship.8 The Afghan authorities would most likely not be able or willing to protect her. 9 In 2013, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reported that the police detained individuals – almost exclusively women – for moral crimes.10 3.2 According to the same report, “[p]olice and legal officials often charged women with intent to commit zina11 to justify their arrest and incarceration for social offenses (…). Article 130 of the constitution provides courts with the discretion to use sharia (Islamic law) (…). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 The Immigration Service deemed F.M.’s narrative as not credible. It took note of her statement that her uncle strictly controlled her whereabouts, and that she was not allowed to leave the house except to go to her neighbour’s house to fetch water. Therefore, the Service considered it unlikely that she had had an affair with R.M. – who was a stranger to her – right after meeting him for the first time; it was also unlikely that she invited him to her home, initiated a sexual relationship with him, and had the opportunity to continue meeting with him after she became engaged to another man. The Service also noted that F.M.’s relationship with R.M., her pregnancy and her escape from Afghanistan were during the same period that she was engaged to another man, which was equally unlikely given the restrictions on her movements. It also emphasized that the authors stayed in Kabul for 20 days and were not approached by either F.M.’s uncle or her fiancé during that time. The Service cited many of the same reasons it gave for its decision on F.M.’s application. It found it unlikely that the authors could have met at F.M.’s home four times within a period of about three weeks without being noticed. The authors produced two documents in the original language, together with Danish and English translations, which they claim represent statements from an Afghan attorney and persons from the local Council of Elders. The imam from the mosque in the authors’ village has allegedly also signed. In addition, a “representative for the area” has also allegedly confirmed that the authors face a high risk of being subjected to the Afghan Penal Code for adultery. Honour killings are common in Afghanistan; see Thematic Report Afghanistan: Blood Feuds, Country of Origin Research and Information (CORI), February 2014. There were 406 reported cases of honour killings and sexual assaults between 21 March 2011 and 21 April 2013, although the unreported number of cases was believed to be much higher (2013 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Afghanistan, United States Department of State, 27 February 2014, p. 39). Without further details, the authors submit that, in two decisions published in the Danish Board’s annual report for 2014, the Board emphasized that the applicants for asylum concerned – allegedly in the same situation as the authors – could not receive any protection from the Afghan authorities. The authors found it odd that, in their case, the Board considered that F.M. would receive protection from the Afghan authorities. 2013 Country Report, U.S. Department of State, p. 10. Term used in Afghan law for extramarital sexual relations. 3