No violation recognised as the author of the complaint had not substantiated the claim and nexus of her alleged persecution under Sharia law and her intended conversion to Hinduism.
Deportation of transgender woman from Denmark to Malaysia.
The author also claims a violation of Article 7 in conjunction with Article 18 (1) of the Covenant, because her conversion from Islam to Hinduism, which is not permitted by Sharia law in Malaysia, puts her at risk of imprisonment upon her return to Malaysia.
There was no nexus found to substantiate the persecution between the application of Sharia law and the author’s intention to convert to Hinduism. It should be noted that the Committee emphasised on the submission that the author had not ‘formally’ converted to Hinduism and no substantial evidence was adduced to prove such a conversion.
The Committee noted that ‘the State party’s submission that the author informed the Danish authorities that she had not formally converted to Hinduism. Nor has the author provided the Committee with any detail regarding her alleged conversion, or of the consequences that that conversion implicates. She has not claimed that her alleged case before the Sharia court in Melaka is related to her joining Hinduism, or that she has otherwise been subjected to persecution as a result of her conversion, nor has she provided any detail regarding the likely risk and nature of such persecution if she were returned.
Accordingly, the Committee concludes that this claim is insufficiently substantiated and therefore inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.