Kapitel 1 - Flygtningenævnet
Kapitel 1 - Flygtningenævnet
Kapitel 1 - Flygtningenævnet
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Kapitel</strong> 5 · Sager indbragt for internationale organisationer<br />
made by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs concerning the risk of double jeopardy in Uganda<br />
and an amnesty for supporters of former President Amin to conclude that the author would<br />
not face a risk of being tortured or ill-treated upon return to Uganda. Similarly, the Refugee<br />
Board, after giving a detailed account of the author’s statements as to his fear of being subjected<br />
to ill-treatment upon return to Uganda, dismissed his appeal on the basis of the same<br />
opinion by the Ministry, without providing any substantive reasons of its own, in its decision<br />
of 28 June 2004. In particular, the Board merely dismissed, because of late submission, the author’s<br />
claim that his political activities in Denmark were known to the Ugandan authorities,<br />
thereby placing him at a particular risk of being subjected to ill-treatment upon return to<br />
Uganda. The State party has not furnished the Committee with the opinion of its Ministry for<br />
Foreign Affairs or with other documents that would make out the factual basis for the Ministry’s<br />
assessment. In sum, before the Committee the State party seeks to refute the alleged risk<br />
of treatment contrary to article 7 merely by referring to the outcome of the assessment made<br />
by its own authorities, instead of commenting the author’s fairly detailed account on why such<br />
a risk in his opinion exists.<br />
11.4. In the light of the State party’s failure to provide substantive arguments upon which the<br />
State party relies to rebut the author’s allegations, the Committee finds that due weight must<br />
be given to his detailed account of the existence of a risk of treatment contrary to article 7. Consequently,<br />
the Committee is of the view that the expulsion order against the author would, if<br />
implemented by returning him to Uganda, constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.”<br />
To dissentierende medlemmer af komitéen fandt ikke, at der forelå en overtrædelse<br />
af konventionens artikel 7, og bemærkede i den forbindelse blandt andet,<br />
at komitéen alene havde haft adgang til en dansk udgave af Flygtningenævnets<br />
beslutning, som kun få medlemmer havde mulighed for at læse, at komitéen<br />
ikke havde anmodet de danske myndigheder om at fremskaffe alt relevant<br />
materiale til brug for sagen, at komitéen har en klar pligt til at respektere et<br />
bestemt niveau af fairness i sagsbehandlingen, og at denne standard i den foreliggende<br />
sag efter de dissentierende medlemmers opfattelse ikke var respekteret.<br />
5.3.1.3 Den danske stats bemærkninger<br />
Ved brev af 18. marts 2005 anmodede Danmark komitéen om at genoverveje sagen.<br />
Til støtte herfor var blandt andet anført følgende:<br />
“The Government of Denmark had interpreted the communication of Mr. XXX as a complaint<br />
concerning the judgement of the High Court sentencing Mr. XXX to expulsion. Hence the<br />
Government of Denmark unfortunately did not provide the Committee with detailed material<br />
concerning the subsequent decision of the Danish Refugee Board of June 2004. Given the concrete<br />
reasoning of the Committee, it appears to the Government of Denmark, as it did to the<br />
dissenting members of the Committee, that important information with regard to the activities<br />
of the Refugee Board and to its reasoning and decision in the present case has been lacking<br />
when the Views of the Committee were adopted. For instance it appears that the Committee<br />
did not have access to a translated version of the decision of The Refugee Board of 28 June<br />
2004. That may explain why the Committee came under the impression that the Refugee Board<br />
dismissed the statement given by Mr. XXX simply because the information was submitted late<br />
in the Board’s hearing of the case. On the contrary, the Board adjourned the hearing of the case<br />
in order to provide Mr. XXX with the opportunity to obtain documents to substantiate his<br />
exposure and political activities. Only then did the Board make its own decision. The Board,<br />
99