CCPR/C/117/D/2464/2014 Annex Joint opinion of Committee members Yuval Shany, Yuji Iwasawa and Konstantin Vardzelashvili (dissenting) 1. We regret that we are unable to join the majority on the Committee in finding that, in deciding to deport the author, Denmark would, if it implemented the decision, violate its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 2. In paragraph 7.3 of the Views, the Committee recalls that “important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party’s authorities and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant 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 arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice”. Despite this, the majority of the Committee rejected the factual conclusion of the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board that the author had failed to establish grounds for asylum because his individual circumstances did not give rise to a risk of a serious harm, and, in paragraph 7.7, held that: The State party’s immigration authorities have not given sufficient weight to the cumulative effect of the author’s individual circumstances, which make him particularly vulnerable, in assessing the risk of him being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant, in case of his forcible return to Somalia. In the Committee’s view, the author’s situation is distinguishable from that of the other Somali nationals, who sought asylum abroad on the ground of the general situation in Somalia, since he left the country of origin at the age of five and does not have any remaining family or social network in Somalia, has limited literacy skills in the Somali language, belongs to a minority clan and suffered from tuberculosis in the recent past. 3. By engaging in what appears to an independent risk assessment, we are of the view that the majority on the Committee failed to properly apply the “clearly arbitrary” standard it itself identified, and did not follow the long-held tradition, according to which the Committee does not serve “a fourth instance competent to re-evaluate findings of fact”.a 4. In many 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 had 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,b serious procedural flaws in the conduct of the domestic review proceedings,c or the inability of the State party to provide a reasonable justification for its decision.d In the present case, however, no inadequacy in the domestic decision-making process has been identified. a b c d See, for example, communication No. 1138/2002, Arenz et al v. Germany, Views adopted on 24 March 2004, para. 8.6. See, for example, communication No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, paras. 8.4-8.6. See, for example, communication No. 1908/2009, X. v. Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 March 2014, para. 11.5. See, for example, communication No. 1222/2003, Byahuranga v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, paras. 11.3-11.4. 13