Discontinuance decision; Subjects: RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, DENMARK; [CRC: Kinderrechtskonvention, Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes; Convention relative aux droits de l'enfant; Convenzione sui diritti del fanciullo]
Erwägungen (6 Absätze)
E. 1 The author of the communication is S.K.M., a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo born in 1973. She submits the communication on behalf of her son, T.H., also a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, born on 23 April 2008. She claims that by deporting her and T.H. to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party would breach his rights under articles 3, 6, 12, 22 (1) and 37 (a) of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 7 January 2016. The author is represented by counsel.
E. 2 The author, who originates from North Kivu, fled from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Uganda in 2005. In 2008, she gave birth to T.H. On 7 June 2010, they left Uganda because of the unstable security situation and arrived in Denmark the next day. On 9 September 2010, the Immigration Service denied their asylum application. On 2 March 2011, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld that decision, finding that the author had not rendered it probable that they would be exposed to a real risk of persecution upon removal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. On 29 April 2011 and 30 April 2014, the Board refused to reopen their case. The Danish Police attempted twice to deport the author and T.H., but the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo refused to accept them. On 15 August 2017, the Danish Police transmitted their personal information to a person in the
* Adopted by the Committee at its ninety-seventh session (26 August–13 September 2024). ** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Suzanne Aho, Aïssatou Alassane Moulaye Sidikou, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Mary Beloff, Rinchen Chophel, Rosaria Correa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Philip Jaffé, Otani Mikiko, Luis Ernesto Pedernera Reyna, Ann Skelton, Velina Todorova, Benoit Van Keirsbilck and Ratou Zara. United Nations CRC/C/97/D/103/2019 Convention on the Rights of the Child Distr.: General 22 October 2024 Original: English CRC/C/97/D/103/2019 2 GE.24-18724 Democratic Republic of the Congo who may not have been authorized to receive such information. On 9 April 2019, the author requested again that the asylum case be reopened and argued that T.H.’s asylum claim and the violations of his rights under the Convention had not been assessed separately, but the request did not suspend their removal. T.H. is traumatized and fearful, including of being deported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he has never been and where he may be recruited as a child soldier. The author submits that the State party has failed to: (a) assess T.H.’s best interests; (b) take measures to ensure that his opinion is heard in the asylum case; (c) take measures to provide him with appropriate protection; and (d) take measures to prevent him from being exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and a risk to his right to life upon deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular the risk of being recruited as a child soldier.
E. 3 On 31 October 2019, pursuant to article 6 of the Optional Protocol, the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested the State party to refrain from returning the author and T.H. to the Democratic Republic of the Congo while the case was under consideration by the Committee.
E. 4 On 29 January 2020, the State party requested the Committee to suspend its consideration of the communication, as the Danish Refugee Appeals Board had decided on 17 January 2020 to reopen the author and T.H.’s asylum case. On 21 February 2020, the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, acceded to the State party’s request.
E. 5 On 10 June 2024, the State party informed the Committee that, on 16 December 2020, the Refugee Appeals Board had granted the author and T.H. a residence permit under section 7 (2) of the Danish Aliens Act and derivative refugee status. The State party therefore requested the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the communication. On 13 July 2024, the author stated that she had no comments on the State party’s request.
E. 6 At its meeting on 2 September 2024, the Committee, having considered that the author and T.H. no longer faced the risk of being deported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and concluding that the subject matter of the communication had therefore become moot, decided to discontinue the consideration of communication No. 103/2019 in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.24-18724 (E) 221024 221024 Committee on the Rights of the Child Decision adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure, concerning communication No. 103/2019*, ** Communication submitted by: S.K.M. (represented by counsel, Kirstine Mose) Alleged victim: T.H. State party: Denmark Date of communication: 28 October 2019 (initial submission) Subject matter: Deportation of a child to the Democratic Republic of the Congo Substantive issues: Right to life; best interests of the child; torture and ill-treatment; non-refoulement; appropriate protection and humanitarian treatment; right to be heard Articles of the Convention: 3, 6, 12, 22 (1) and 37 (a) 1. The author of the communication is S.K.M., a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo born in 1973. She submits the communication on behalf of her son, T.H., also a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, born on 23 April 2008. She claims that by deporting her and T.H. to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party would breach his rights under articles 3, 6, 12, 22 (1) and 37 (a) of the Convention. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 7 January 2016. The author is represented by counsel. 2. The author, who originates from North Kivu, fled from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Uganda in 2005. In 2008, she gave birth to T.H. On 7 June 2010, they left Uganda because of the unstable security situation and arrived in Denmark the next day. On 9 September 2010, the Immigration Service denied their asylum application. On 2 March 2011, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld that decision, finding that the author had not rendered it probable that they would be exposed to a real risk of persecution upon removal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. On 29 April 2011 and 30 April 2014, the Board refused to reopen their case. The Danish Police attempted twice to deport the author and T.H., but the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo refused to accept them. On 15 August 2017, the Danish Police transmitted their personal information to a person in the
* Adopted by the Committee at its ninety-seventh session (26 August–13 September 2024). ** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Suzanne Aho, Aïssatou Alassane Moulaye Sidikou, Thuwayba Al Barwani, Hynd Ayoubi Idrissi, Mary Beloff, Rinchen Chophel, Rosaria Correa, Bragi Gudbrandsson, Philip Jaffé, Otani Mikiko, Luis Ernesto Pedernera Reyna, Ann Skelton, Velina Todorova, Benoit Van Keirsbilck and Ratou Zara. United Nations CRC/C/97/D/103/2019 Convention on the Rights of the Child Distr.: General 22 October 2024 Original: English CRC/C/97/D/103/2019 2 GE.24-18724 Democratic Republic of the Congo who may not have been authorized to receive such information. On 9 April 2019, the author requested again that the asylum case be reopened and argued that T.H.’s asylum claim and the violations of his rights under the Convention had not been assessed separately, but the request did not suspend their removal. T.H. is traumatized and fearful, including of being deported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where he has never been and where he may be recruited as a child soldier. The author submits that the State party has failed to: (a) assess T.H.’s best interests; (b) take measures to ensure that his opinion is heard in the asylum case; (c) take measures to provide him with appropriate protection; and (d) take measures to prevent him from being exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and a risk to his right to life upon deportation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular the risk of being recruited as a child soldier. 3. On 31 October 2019, pursuant to article 6 of the Optional Protocol, the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, requested the State party to refrain from returning the author and T.H. to the Democratic Republic of the Congo while the case was under consideration by the Committee. 4. On 29 January 2020, the State party requested the Committee to suspend its consideration of the communication, as the Danish Refugee Appeals Board had decided on 17 January 2020 to reopen the author and T.H.’s asylum case. On 21 February 2020, the working group on communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, acceded to the State party’s request. 5. On 10 June 2024, the State party informed the Committee that, on 16 December 2020, the Refugee Appeals Board had granted the author and T.H. a residence permit under section 7 (2) of the Danish Aliens Act and derivative refugee status. The State party therefore requested the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the communication. On 13 July 2024, the author stated that she had no comments on the State party’s request. 6. At its meeting on 2 September 2024, the Committee, having considered that the author and T.H. no longer faced the risk of being deported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and concluding that the subject matter of the communication had therefore become moot, decided to discontinue the consideration of communication No. 103/2019 in accordance with rule 26 of its rules of procedure under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.