Treaty body activity during the first half of 2014

The UN human rights treaty bodies will be reviewing over 135 country reports, covering 91 countries, during the first half of 2014. The first treaty body session, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, gets underway in one week, on January 13th.  Deadlines for submissions by NGOs on particular countries are coming up soon in all of the treaty bodies.

Calendar

Here is a schedule of upcoming treaty body sessions. All of these meetings will be in Geneva:

January 13-31	Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
February 3-21	Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Racism (CERD)
February 10-28	Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
February 24-28	Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT) (closed session, not public)
March 10-28	Human Rights Committee (CCPR)
March 17-28	Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)
March 31 - April 11	Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
March 31 - April 11	Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)
April 28 - May 23	Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESC)
April 28 - May 23	Committee Against Torture (CAT)
May 26 - June 13	Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
June 2-6	Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT) (closed session, not public)

Deadlines for submissions

I've prepared an unofficial table of session dates and submission deadlines, organised alphabetically by country. Please be aware that these dates are subject to change. Some of these deadlines have already passed; if one of these dates affects you, be sure to check with the Committee's Secretariat since they will sometimes accept late submissions.

Country	Treaty body	Session	Start date	Type of review	Official deadline for submissions
Argentina	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare LOIPR	20-Dec-13
Armenia	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Azerbaijan	CRPD	11th	Mar 31	Country report	28-Feb-14
Azerbaijan	SPT			country visit in 2014	dates not set yet
Bahrain	CEDAW	57th	Feb 10	Country report	24-Jan-14
Belgium	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
Belgium	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Belgium	CED	6th	Mar 17	Prepare list of issues	27-Jan-14
Belgium	CRPD	12th WG	Apr 14	Prepare list of issues	28-Feb-14
Belize	CMW	20th	Mar 31	Country report	17-Mar-14
Brunei Darussalam	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
Burundi	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare list of issues	14-Feb-14
Cambodia	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: OPSC + OPAC	01-Mar-14
Cameroon	CEDAW	57th	Feb 10	Country report	24-Jan-14
Chad	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Country report	14-Feb-14
China	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
China	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Colombia	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Congo	CRC	65th	Jan  13	Country report	01-Mar-13
Costa Rica	CRPD	11th	Mar 31	Country report	28-Feb-14
Croatia	CRC	67th	Feb 3	periodic report	01-Nov-13
Cuba	CRC	66th	May 26	OPAC report	01-Jul-13
Cuba	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: OPSC + OPAC	01-Mar-14
Cyprus	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	11-Apr-14
Czech Republic	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare LOIPR	14-Feb-14
Czech Republic	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Denmark	CRPD	12th WG	Apr 14	Prepare list of issues	28-Feb-14
Dominican Republic	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Ecuador	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare LOIPR	20-Dec-13
Ecuador	CRPD	12th WG	Apr 14	Prepare list of issues	28-Feb-14
Ecuador	SPT			country visit in 2014	dates not set yet
El Salvador	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Fiji	CRC	67th	Feb 3	periodic report	01-Nov-13
Finland	CEDAW	57th	Feb 10	Country report	24-Jan-14
Gambia	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Gambia	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Germany	CRC	65th	Jan  13	Periodic Rept + OPSC	01-Mar-13
Germany	CED	6th	Mar 17	Country report	03-Feb-14
Germany	CRPD	12th WG	Apr 14	Prepare list of issues	28-Feb-14
Ghana	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
Ghana	CMW	20th	Mar 31	Country report	17-Mar-14
Greece	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare LOIPR	14-Feb-14
Guatemala	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Guinea	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
Guinea	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	review in absence of state report	11-Apr-14
Haiti	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare list of issues	20-Dec-13
Holy See	CRC	65th	Jan  13	Periodic Rept + OPSC & OPAC	01-Mar-13
Holy See	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	11-Apr-14
Honduras	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Honduras	CMW	20th	Mar 31	Prepare LOIPR	17-Mar-14
Hong Kong	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Hungary	CRC	67th	Feb 3	periodic rept + OPSC + OPAC	01-Nov-13
India	CRC	66th	May 26	periodic rept + OPSC	01-Jul-13
Indonesia	CRC	66th	May 26	periodic report	01-Jul-13
Indonesia	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Iraq	CEDAW	57th	Feb 10	Country report	24-Jan-14
Iraq	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: OPSC + OPAC	01-Mar-14
Jamaica	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Jordan	CRC	66th	May 26	periodic rept + OPSC + OPAC	01-Jul-13
Kazakhstan	CEDAW	57th	Feb 10	Country report	24-Jan-14
Kazakhstan	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Kyrgyzstan	CRC	66th	May 26	periodic report	01-Jul-13
Kyrgyzstan	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Country report	14-Feb-14
Latvia	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Country report	14-Feb-14
Lesotho	CMW	20th	Mar 31	Prepare LOIPR	17-Mar-14
Lithuania	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Lithuania	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	11-Apr-14
Luxembourg	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Macao	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Malta	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare list of issues	20-Dec-13
Malta	SPT			country visit in 2014	dates not set yet
Mauritania	CMW	20th	Mar 31	Prepare LOIPR	17-Mar-14
Mauritius	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Mexico	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare LOIPR	14-Feb-14
Mexico	CRPD	12th WG	Apr 14	Prepare list of issues	28-Feb-14
Monaco	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Montenegro	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare list of issues	20-Dec-13
Montenegro	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Montenegro	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Montenegro	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	11-Apr-14
Morocco	CRC	67th	Feb 3	periodic rept + OPAC	01-Nov-13
Nepal	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Country report	14-Feb-14
Nepal	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Netherlands	CED	6th	Mar 17	Country report	03-Feb-14
Netherlands	SPT			country visit in 2014	dates not set yet
New Zealand	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare LOIPR	20-Dec-13
New Zealand	CRPD	12th WG	Apr 14	Prepare list of issues	28-Feb-14
Nicaragua	CMW	20th	Mar 31	Prepare LOIPR	17-Mar-14
Nicaragua	SPT			country visit in 2014	dates not set yet
Nigeria	SPT			country visit in 2014	dates not set yet
Norway	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare LOIPR	14-Feb-14
Paraguay	CED	6th	Mar 17	Prepare list of issues	27-Jan-14
Paraguay	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Peru	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare LOIPR	14-Feb-14
Poland	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
Poland	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Portugal	CRC	65th	Jan  13	Periodic Rept + OPSC & OPAC	01-Mar-13
Portugal	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Qatar	CEDAW	57th	Feb 10	Country report	24-Jan-14
Republic of Korea	CRPD	12th WG	Apr 14	Prepare list of issues	28-Feb-14
Romania	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare LOIPR	20-Dec-13
Romania	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Russia	CRC	65th	Jan  13	Periodic Rept + OPAC	01-Mar-13
Russia	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare LOIPR	14-Feb-14
Saint Lucia	CRC	66th	May 26	periodic report	01-Jul-13
Serbia	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Sierra Leone	CEDAW	57th	Feb 10	Country report	24-Jan-14
Sierra Leone	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Country report	14-Feb-14
Sierra Leone	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	11-Apr-14
Singapore	CRC	67th	Feb 3	OPAC report	01-Nov-13
Slovenia	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Solomon Islands	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
Sri Lanka	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare list of issues	20-Dec-13
Sweden	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Prepare LOIPR	20-Dec-13
Sweden	CRPD	11th	Mar 31	Country report	28-Feb-14
Sweden	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Switzerland	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Switzerland	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Tajikistan	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Tanzania	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: periodic report	01-Mar-14
Thailand	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	11-Apr-14
Togo	SPT			country visit in 2014	dates not set yet
Turkmenistan	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: rept, OPAC & OPSC	01-Mar-14
UK	CRC	66th	May 26	OPSC report	01-Jul-13
Ukraine	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Uruguay	CRC	68th WG	Jun 14	prepare LOI: rept, OPAC & OPSC	01-Mar-14
Uruguay	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	11-Apr-14
USA	CCPR	110th	Mar 10	Country report	14-Feb-14
Uzbekistan	CERD	84th	Feb 3	Country report	24-Jan-14
Uzbekistan	CESC	52nd	Apr 28	Country report	17-Mar-14
Venezuela	CRC	67th	Feb 3	periodic rept + OPSC + OPAC	01-Nov-13
Venezuela	CEDAW	59th WG	Mar 3	Prepare list of issues	24-Jan-14
Venezuela	CAT	52nd	Apr 28	prepare list of issues	14-Feb-14
Viet Nam	CESC	53rd WG	May 26	Prepare list of issues	26-Mar-14
Yemen	CRC	65th	Jan  13	Periodic Rept + OPAC	01-Mar-13

Notes for the above table: 

1. The dates cover the first six months of 2014; all dates are tentative, subject to change.

2. The data cover 91 countries, which includes 135 reports, visits or lists of issues to be prepared.

3. The Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture has decided to visit seven countries this year. They have not announced the exact dates yet, so some of these visits may extend into the 2nd half of 2014.

LOIPR = list of issues prepared prior to reporting

LOI = list of issues (after a report is submitted)

OPSC = optional protocol on sale/pornography of children

OPAC = optional protocol on child soldiers

WG = a presessional working group of a Committee which meets to prepare lists of issues on countries to be reviewed at the next regular session of the Committee

data last updated: January 1, 2014

UN Human Rights Committee releases several important new decisions

The UN Human Rights Committee concluded its 108th session in July 2013.  The Committee examines country reports and considers individual complaints under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. There is usually a gap of a month or two before the individual decisions of the session are released. The first six cases have now been announced, including some significant decisions.

Here is a summary of the six decisions.

SIKH MAN PERMITTED TO CONTINUE TO WEAR HIS TURBAN IN HIS FRENCH PASSPORT PHOTO

1.     Singh v. France, CCPR/C/108/1928/2010 (7 August 2013), decided 19 July 2013.  Represented by counsel (Christine B. Bustany, O’Melveny & Myers). The case concerned the obligation of a Sikh man to appear bareheaded without his turban in a passport photo; the right to manifest one's religion, the right to freedom of movement; indirect discrimination. 

Mr. Singh is a Sikh who emigrated to France in 1970 and became a French citizen in 1989.  The photo in his France passport showed him in his Sikh turban when it was originally issued in 1989, and thereafter each time it was renewed, in 1991, 1995, and 2000.  When he tried to renew his passport a 4^th time in 2005 he was told he could no longer wear his turban in his passport photo. A French Decree adopted in 2005 now required that the photo be “front, bareheaded, size 35x45 mm, recent and perfect likeness”.  

He claims that the turban is closely linked to his faith and identity as a Sikh individual. The first commandment of the Sikh faith is that the hair should never be cut and must be kept clean, neat and hidden from public view.  Forcing a Sikh to remove his turban is humiliating, similar to how humiliating it would be have to remove one’s pants in public. He challenged the ruling and lost, and appealed and lost again.  The Appeals Court reasoned that while the wearing of headgear had been tolerated in the past in respect of the Sikh religion, that does not preclude changing the rule going forward.  The change was justified for reasons of national security, public safety and to crackdown on passport fraud. The new rule was designed to limit the risk of fraud or falsification of ID and was a legitimate requirement. 

A complaint was brought by Mr. Singh before the European Court of Human Rights. However, his case was dismissed by the court, saying that they normally yield to the interpretation given by the local state courts in matters of this type unless the change in rule is clearly disproportionate to the objective. In the view of the European Court the new rule was not disproportionate to the stated objective.  Mr. Singh then brought this complaint to the Human Rights Committee, arguing that it was a violation of his freedom of religion under article 18 of the Covenant.

The Committee agreed with Mr. Singh and concluded that the requirement to appear bareheaded in a passport photo was not a necessary and proportionate response under these circumstances. For Sikhs headgear is an essential manifestation of their religion.  The France government had not adequately explained why wearing a Sikh turban covering the upper part of the head and part of the front, but leaving the rest of the face clearly visible would make it more difficult for a clear identification. The Committee noted that Mr. Singh wears the turban at all times in his daily life, so he would appear to be most recognizable with his turban on.  The regulation is therefore a disproportionate restriction on the right to freedom of religion and is a violation of article 18 of the Covenant.

VIOLATION FOUND.  The State must respond in 180 days. Decision is in French only as of 8/23/13.


INDEFINITE DETENTION OF REFUGEES IS A VIOLATION OF THE COVENANT BY AUSTRALIAN AUTHORITIES

The Committee decides two important cases against Australia for the indefinite detention of various refugees. 

2. F.K.A.G. et al v. Australia, CCPR/C/108/2094/2011 (20 August 2013), decided 26 July 2013.  Represented by counsel (Ben Saul). Indefinite detention of persons in immigration facilities.  The claim is brought on behalf of 37 persons who are being held in Australian immigration facilities. All but one of the detainees are Sri Lankan citizens of Tamil ethnicity; the one is a Myanmarese citizen of Rohingya ethnicity. 

In July and November 2012 the Committee issued Interim Measures asking the Government of Australia to take steps to safeguard these persons from harm while the review of this matter was pending, including protecting them from the risk of self-harm, due to the high level of anxiety that was resulting from prolonged detention.  In addition, an independent psychiatric examination was requested of two of the detainees.  

Of the 37 in the group, 31 were apprehended on various boats in March 2009 and March 2010 and brought to an offshore immigration detention facility. One child in the group was born in detention in Australia. Five other members of the group were rescued at sea by Australian customs officials in December 2009.  

All adults in the group were later refused visas based on adverse security assessments. They were never provided with a statement of reasons for these adverse security assessments. The 3 children in the group were granted protection visas.  The adults were unable to challenge their security assessments. Under Australian law, these types of assessments may only be challenged on procedural grounds, not on the merits.  The detention of the adults in the group is thus indefinite – no third party country has come forward to accept them, the Government of Australia has not indicated an intention to return them, and they do not wish to voluntarily return to their country of origin.  Their mental and physical health is deteriorating over this time period, with overdoses and suicide attempts being reported by their attorneys.

Having considered the evidence, the Committee concludes that the indefinite detention of these individuals is a violation of the Covenant. Detention of asylum-seekers is to be used only sparingly, and with adequate safeguards. Australia did not meet this standard with these claimants.

“Asylum-seekers who unlawfully enter a State party’s territory may be detained for a brief initial period in order to document their entry, record their claims, and determine their identity if it is in doubt. To detain them further while their claims are being resolved would be arbitrary absent particular reasons specific to the individual, such as an individualized likelihood of absconding, danger of crimes against others, or risk of acts against national security. The decision must consider relevant factors case-by-case, and not be based on a mandatory rule for a broad category; must take into account less invasive means of achieving the same ends, such as reporting obligations, sureties, or other conditions to prevent absconding; and must be subject to periodic re-evaluation and judicial review. The decisions must also take into account the needs of children and the mental health condition of those detained. Individuals must not be detained indefinitely on immigration control grounds if the State party is unable to carry out their expulsion.

The claimants have been in immigration detention since 2009-10, first under mandatory detention upon arrival and then as a result of adverse security assessments. Whatever justification there may have been for their initial detention … the State party has not, in the Committee’s opinion, demonstrated on an individual basis that their continuous indefinite detention is justified.  The State party has not demonstrated that other, less intrusive, measures could not have achieved the same end … They are also deprived of legal safeguards allowing them to challenge their indefinite detention.  For all these reasons, the Committee concludes that the detention of both groups is arbitrary and contrary to article 9, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. This conclusion extends to the three minor children, as their situation, irrespective of their legal status as lawful non-citizens, cannot be disassociated from that of their parents.”

In addition, the Committee ruled that the five persons in the group who received later security assessments under the so-called ASIO process were also not provided specific enough reasons for their negative assessments, and that this also constituted a violation of article 9, paragraph 2 of the Convention.

In addition, the Committee held that the lack of an effective judicial review was a violation of article 9, paragraph 4.

On the issue of inhuman treatment, the Committee concluded that the availability of general health care and mental support services in the detention facility was not enough in this case to satisfy the article 7 treatment requirements.  The combination of the arbitrary character of the individuals’ detention, its protracted and/or indefinite duration, the refusal to provide key information and procedural rights to them, and the difficult conditions of their detention, were altogether inflicting on a cumulative basis serious psychological harm, and that this harm was a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.

VIOLATION FOUND.  The State must respond in 180 days.

There was a separate opinion submitted by Sir Nigel Rodley of the Committee, concurring in part and dissenting in part. He refers to his separate opinion in C. v. Australia, 900/1999 (Oct 2002), indicating that he does not agree with the Committee’s finding of a separate violation of article 9, paragraph 4 (inadequate judicial review); he believes the reasoning of this type of violation is circular and superfluous, being adequately covered instead as a violation of article 9, paragraph 1.

3.  M.M.M. v. Australia, CCPR/C/108/2136/2012 (20 August 2013), decided 25 July 2013.  Represented by counsel (Ben Saul). ). Indefinite detention of persons in immigration facilities.  This case is a companion case to F.K.A.G. et al v. Australia, 2094/2011.  

The claimants in this case were nine persons, two of whom were from Myanmar of Rohingya ethnicity, six persons from Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity, and one person from Kuwait of Bedouin ethnicity.  They entered Australian territorial waters by various boats between October 2009 and December 2010, for the purpose of claiming refugee protection.  They did not have valid visas and were detained upon their arrival. The Australian authorities recognized them as refugees for whom return to their countries of origin was unsafe. But they were refused visas to remain in Australia following security assessments which were conducted on each of them.  None of them were given a statement of reasons as to why they had received negative security assessments.  They were not permitted under Australian law to challenge the merits of their security assessments; only a procedural challenge for jurisdictional errors was permitted, but not the decision itself. Since the grounds for the negative assessments have never been disclosed by the authorities, they have no way of determining whether there are any jurisdictional errors that can be challenged.  

They thus are in a state of indefinite detention – they do not wish to return to their country of origin; the Australian authorities have not indicated that they intend to remove them; and no third country has stepped forward to accept them.  One of the detainees, and her minor son, were released while the case was pending.

After reviewing the evidence, the Committee concludes that Australia is in breach of its obligations under the Covenant for the way in which it has handled these detainees.  Detentions of asylum-seekers, if needed at all, should be brief, justified, and proportionate in light of the circumstances.  These persons have been kept in immigration detention since 2009-2010, first under mandatory detention upon arrival and then as a result of adverse security assessments.  Whatever justification there may have been for an initial detention, the Australian government has not, in the Committee’s opinion, demonstrated on an individual basis that it continues to be justified at this time. They have not demonstrated that other, less intrusive measures could not be used instead.  The Committee concludes that the government has violated article 7 and article 9, paragraphs 1 and 4 of the Covenant.

An opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part is filed by Sir Nigel Rodley. He refers to his separate opinion in C. v. Australia, 900/1999 (Oct 2002), indicating that he does not agree with the Committee’s finding of a separate violation of article 9, paragraph 4 (inadequate judicial review); he believes the reasoning of this type of violation is circular and superfluous, being adequately covered instead as a violation of article 9, paragraph 1.

VIOLATION FOUND.  The State must respond in 180 days.

SWEDEN'S DEPORTATION OF A LESBIAN WOMAN BACK TO BANGLADESH IS A VIOLATION OF HER RIGHTS

4.  M.I. v. Sweden, CCPR/C/108/2149/2012 (14 August 2013), decided 25 July 2013.  Represented by counsel (Eva Rimsten from the Swedish Red Cross). Deportation of a lesbian woman to Bangladesh.  The complainant, referred to by her initials as Ms. M.I., is a 28 year old woman, from Dhaka, Bangladesh, where her family still lives. She says she is a lesbian and that her parents learned of her sexual orientation when she was approximately 17 years old. 

They did not approve of her sexual orientation and arranged a forced marriage with a Bengali man in 2006 when she was 21.  He was living in Sweden and she joined him there in June 2006 after receiving a temporary residence permit. When her husband found out that she was lesbian, he forced her to go back to Bangladesh a month later, July 2006.  That same year she met a female partner in Bangladesh and they began living together. Within two years it became generally known in her community that they were a lesbian couple. Homosexuality is against the law in Bangladesh although infrequently enforced. 

She was arrested by the police in April 2008 due to her homosexuality. She was beaten and raped while in custody. During the same period, her partner was kidnapped by an Islamic organization called Shator Shivir and she has not been seen or heard from since.  After Ms. M.I. was released from custody, she continued to receive threats from this same Islamic organization and from the police. She had sporadic communication with her family. Her father refused to have any contact. 

Since her Swedish residence permit was valid until May 2008 she decided to return to Sweden and to apply for asylum there.  She applied for asylum in Sweden in April 2008. The Migration Board rejected her application and ordered her returned to Bangladesh. She appealed several more times, including with additional evidence but was denied at each stage.  The asylum authorities were concerned with apparent inconsistencies and ambiguities in her story, and with her failure to file complaints against the police at the time that they had beaten and raped her. For all these reasons they did not view her testimony as credible. She tried to explain the problem was due in part to her extreme state of mental depression during this period and to the trauma of the experiences she had suffered. She introduced medical evidence documenting these problems.

After considering the evidence, the Committee concluded that the state’s asylum officials and courts of appeal did not give adequate consideration to the overall climate of fear and stigmatization of homosexuals in Bangladeshi society and instead focused mainly on inconsistencies and ambiguities in the author’s account of specific supporting facts. However, the primary facts of her testimony were unquestioned that she was an LGBT person in a society that presented major risks to such persons; the indicated inconsistencies and ambiguities in her story were not of such a nature as to undermine the reality of the feared risks. “Against the background of the situation faced by persons belonging to sexual minorities, as reflected by reports provided by the parties, the Committee is of the view that, in the particular case of the author, the state party failed to take into due consideration the author’s allegations regarding the events she went through in Bangladesh because of her sexual orientation, in particular her mistreatment by the police, in order to assess the alleged risk she would face if returned.”  Accordingly, the author’s deportation to Bangladesh constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant.  

VIOLATION FOUND.  The State must respond in 180 days.

CZECH WOMAN'S CLAIM FOR LOST WAGES DURING WRONGFUL DETENTION IS DISMISSED AS NOT SUFFICIENTLY SUBSTANTIATED

5. V.B. v. Czech Republic, CCPR/C/108/1809/2008 (15 August 2013), decided 24 July 2013.  Represented by counsel (David Strupek). Alleged discrimination in access to social security while in detention. 

A Czech woman who was of Roma ethnic origin claimed a right to lost income while she was in detention on a charge of attempted murder, since she was eventually acquitted of the charge and was not able to seek work while in detention.  She lost the claim and appealed, and lost again.  She also argued she was being discriminated against in part in these rulings because she was a Roma.  The Committee concluded that the statute in question pertained to actual income lost from a current job, not the possibility of receiving income if job seeking efforts had been successful.  It is usually up to the state courts to interpret legislation of this nature, and the Committee would not overrule their interpretation. 

Based on the materials and evidence submitted, the Committee does not view the evidence as demonstrating that the state acted arbitrarily. The claim is therefore not sufficiently substantiated.   

RULED TO BE INADMISSIBLE.  Claim is dismissed. 

CLAIM IS DISMISSED -- EAST TIMOR MAN AND HIS WIFE WERE TRYING TO CONTEST THEIR DEPORTATION FROM AUSTRALIA BASED ON THEIR POOR HEALTH 

6. S.Y.L. v. AUSTRALIA, CCPR/C/108/1897/2009 (15 August 2013), decided 24 July 2013.  Represented by counsel (Kon Karapanagiotidis, Asylum Resource Centre). Expulsion to a country where a person fears persecution and inadequate access to medical care since he has significant health problems. 

A Timor Leste man and his family left the country in 2006, fearing for their safety. They fled to Australia where they had several family members, and qualified for Sponsored Family Visitor visas once they arrived.  He applied for a protection visa, based on his Chinese origin and the violence in the country but was denied the visa. The authorities claimed that he had not substantiated a well-founded fear of persecution. He appealed that decision and lost again. 

He then reapplied seeking a humanitarian exception based on his health problems, including the deteriorating health of both he and his wife. His health problems include diabetes, gout, high blood pressure and tuberculosis.  This time his application was refused again. He and his family were ordered to depart Australia by August 2009 or face detention. He claimed the kinds of medical care that he and his wife would need were not available in Timor Leste in the area where he would live if he returned to the country. 

He brought this claim to the UN Human Rights Committee claiming that deportation in the face of inadequate medical care would constitute inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. The Government of Australia presented evidence that though he and his wife have some chronic health conditions, the conditions were currently stabilized and the medicines and care necessary to treat them were available in Timor Leste. 

After reviewing the evidence, the Committee concluded that Mr. S.Y.L. did not sufficiently demonstrate that his health would be aggravated to such an extent by his deportation that it would reach the threshold of inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant. 

RULED TO BE INADMISSIBLE.   Claim is dismissed.