CEDAW/C/62/D/53/2013 expected to marry another woman. After the marriage, the author and her husban d lived together for about two months in another village. The husband then returned to Denmark. Before his return, he found accommodation for the author, who was obliged to live there alone because she had been rejected by both families. During that period, the author was supported financially by her husband. The husband then decided to take the author to Denmark. In 2009, she obtained a visitor visa and was able to enter Denmark, but had to return to Pakistan in May 2009 after her request for a permanent residence permit was denied. 1 Back in Pakistan, she began working in a beauty salon in June 2009. 2.2 In July 2009, three men broke into the author’s house, beat her, kicked her, threw inflammable liquid at her and set fire to her clothes, causing severe b urns to her torso and arms. The men accused her of performing “dirty work”, alleging that she was a prostitute. The attack occurred six days after a group of men broke into the beauty salon and committed vandalism, accusing the employees of performing “dirty work” and calling the place a “sex clinic”. After the attack, the author never returned to the salon. Following the attack at her house, the author stayed in hospital for around seven or eight months to recover from her burns, during which time she gave birth to her first child. The author believes that the two attacks are linked and that they were organized by her husband’s family. She claims that she did not make a complaint to the police because one of her acquaintances told her that the police took no action when her neighbours alerted them about the incident because she was considered a prostitute. 2.3 The author further alleges that, in March 2010, while she was taking her son to the hospital in a taxi, unknown men on motorbikes shot at them. She c onsiders that that was a deliberate act because the men came very close to the car to shoot at her. She was not injured, but the driver was. The author again did not report the incident to the police because she knew that they would take no action owing to the rumours about her supposed work as a prostitute. 2.4 The author arrived in Denmark on 8 June 2010 on a visa that was valid until 20 September 2010. She requested family reunification on 19 July 2010, which was denied on 12 January 2011 by the Danish Immigration Service. She appealed against the decision before the Ministry of Refugees, Immigration and Integration Affairs. On 17 June 2011, the Ministry upheld the decision of the Service. On 15 September 2012, the author was arrested by the police for illegally staying in Denmark. She remained in detention until 15 October 2012. On 16 September 2012, she applied for asylum, claiming that she feared that her life would be in danger if she were returned to Pakistan. The Service denied her request for asylum on 22 January 2013, 2 considering that, according to background information, women in Pakistan were under the control of male family members and it was therefore unlikely that the author would have decided to marry without the consent of her family or of her husband’s family. The Service also considered that the author’s argument in that regard had been constructed for the purpose of the request. The Service further considered that the family of the author’s husband had never threatened her and that her fears were therefore groundless, and that the events cited by the author as evidence of threat (the attacks at the beauty salon, at the author’s home and in the __________________ 1 2 15-21603 The author provides no further information regarding the trip to Denmark or the decision to deny her request for family reunification. The author provided an unofficial translation of the decision by the Danish Immigration Service. 3/16