Communication submitted by:

A.A. (represented by counsel, Niels‑Erik Hansen)

Alleged victim:

The author

State Party:

Denmark

Date of communication:

7 November 2024

Subject matter:

Failure by the State Party to evaluate the risk of gender apartheid that the author would face if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran in view of her refusal to wear a mandatory headscarf

Articles of the Convention:

1, 2 (d) and 15

1.The author of the communication is A.A., a national of the Islamic Republic of Iran, born in 1960. The author alleges that the State Party has violated her rights under articles 1, 2 (d) and 15 of the Convention on account of the risks that she would face in the Islamic Republic of Iran, should she be deported there, and because the State Party has failed to examine her allegations and evaluate the risks. The author is represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 22 December 2000.

* Adopted by the Committee at its ninety-second session (2–20 February 2026).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present communication: Brenda Akia, Hiroko Akizuki, Violet Eudine Barriteau, Rangita de Silva de Alwis, Corinne Dettmeijer-Vermeulen, Nada Moustafa Fathi Draz, Esther Eghobamien-Mshelia, Yamila González Ferrer, Daphna Hacker, Nahla Haidar El Addal, Madina Jarbussynova, Marianne Mikko, Mu Hong, Ana Peláez Narváez, Jelena Pia-Comella, Bandana Rana, Rhoda Reddock, Elgun Safarov, Erika Schläppi, Natasha Stott Despoja, Genoveva Tisheva and Patsilí Toledo Vásquez.

2.On 2 March 2020, the author arrived in Denmark. She applied for asylum on 11 May, claiming to be at risk of proscribed treatment in the Islamic Republic of Iran given her conversion to Christianity. On 27 June 2023, the Danish Immigration Service rejected her application, citing a lack of credibility. On 28 November, the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the decision on appeal. In September 2024, the author was placed in pre-removal detention. Previously, on 16 September 2023, prior to her being placed in pre-removal detention, the author had participated in protests in Copenhagen against the death of Mahsa Amini, a woman who had been arrested in Tehran for opposing the mandatory wearing of headscarves and had subsequently died in custody. On 16 September 2024, another demonstration was held in Copenhagen against the author’s impending deportation. The author’s name and photographs of her without a headscarf were displayed during the demonstration. On 12 September, the author requested the Board to reopen consideration of her asylum request on the grounds that she was opposed to wearing a headscarf, had participated in protests in Copenhagen and would refuse to wear a headscarf if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. She indicated that, given the general situation in that country with regard to women who did not wear a headscarf, and in the light of her personal circumstances, she would be at risk of gender-based ill-treatment if returned.

3.On 28 October 2024, the Board refused to reopen the author’s case. The Board found that her initial asylum claim relating to her alleged conversion to Christianity had been considered and rejected as unfounded during the initial asylum proceedings and that there were no grounds to change that assessment. The Board found that the general conditions for women in the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the norms for women’s dress, could not justify the granting of asylum. The Board noted that during the initial asylum proceedings the author did not claim that she had any problems with the Iranian authorities relating to norms of Iranian society or that she was politically active.

4.On 12 November 2024, the Committee, acting through its Working Group on Communications under the Optional Protocol, registered the communication and granted interim measures under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol, requesting the State Party not to deport the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran while her communication was under consideration.

5.On 28 February 2025, the State Party requested that consideration of the communication be suspended as, on 20 February, the Refugee Appeals Board had decided to reopen the author’s case. On 16 May, the State Party submitted that, on 7 May, the Board had decided to grant the author a residence permit pursuant to article 7 (1) of the Danish Aliens Act. Accordingly, the State Party invited the Committee to discontinue its consideration of the communication.

6.On 30 June 2025, the author opposed the State Party’s request because she had not been granted asylum based on her claim of gender apartheid. The author notes that there are six other cases in which the State Party reopened asylum proceedings after complaints were submitted to the Committee. In each of those cases, although asylum was granted to the authors, it was based not on their claimed asylum grounds of gender apartheid, but rather on alternative and unrelated grounds. The author submits that this pattern reflects a systematic failure to recognize gender apartheid as a valid and independent ground for asylum.

7.At its meeting on 17 February 2026, the Committee, taking into account that the author had been granted a residence permit and was not facing the risk of deportation to the Islamic Republic of Iran, considered that the case had become moot and decided to discontinue its consideration of communication No. 227/2024.