Message: Osayi Omo-Amenaghavon vs. Denmark. Message No. 2288/2013. The Opinion was adopted by the Committee on July 23, 2015.
In 2014, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Denmark.
Subject of the message: deportation to Nigeria.
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant that, if returned to Nigeria, she would be in danger of being killed or tortured by Mr. P.B. or Ms. B.O. or their relatives or persons associated with a trafficking network in Nigeria. In support of her claims, the author refers to the following facts: she was a victim of human trafficking and was forced to work as a prostitute in Denmark; She testified against traffickers associated with her in criminal proceedings before a Danish court; and she allegedly received threats from traffickers associated with her and from a close relative of one of them who lives in Nigeria... The Committee takes note of the State party's arguments that, according to the author, Mr. P.B.'s brother threatened her only once; that there does not appear to be evidence of any other threats, even after the release of Mr. P.B. and Ms. B.O. from prison in March 2011; that the author's allegations of an alleged threat from persons associated with a trafficking network are unclear and are not accompanied by the necessary details; and that, according to reports from States and NGOs, the Nigerian authorities are actively combating trafficking in persons and its consequences, including for the benefit of women victims of trafficking who have returned to Nigeria and they permanently reside there (paragraph 7.3 of the Considerations).
The Committee notes that the State party does not dispute that the author is a victim of trafficking by Mr. P.B. and Ms. B.O. and that they were prosecuted and sentenced to prison after she reported them to the police and testified against them in court. The Committee also notes that the rejection of her asylum applications by the Refugee Appeals Board was based primarily on the lack of specific information confirming the author's allegations of threats to her safety from relatives of criminal actors and persons associated with human trafficking in Nigeria. In carrying out this assessment, the Council summarized the measures taken by the Nigerian authorities to combat human trafficking and provide assistance to victims. The Committee considers that [due to] the specific circumstances [m] of the author's case, the State party has not taken into account the special vulnerability of persons (in this case, the author of the communication) who are victims of trafficking in persons, which often lasts for several years after their rescue or release from the subjects of criminal acts, as well as the special status of the author as a witness in the criminal proceedings against these subjects of criminal acts. In addition, the State party has not given due consideration to the specific ability of the Nigerian authorities to provide the author, taking into account her special circumstances, with protection to ensure that her life and physical and mental integrity will not be seriously threatened. Thus, ... the author's deportation to Nigeria would constitute a violation of her rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 7.5 of the Opinion).
The Committee's conclusions: The author's removal to Nigeria, if carried out, would violate the author's rights under articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (paragraph 8 of the Opinion).