Zb-2-A：移民局空白来信事件——通过行政形式施加的心理压力
事件背景：
2025年4月28日，我收到来自**丹麦移民局（Udlændingestyrelsen）**的一封正式信件，标题为 “Følgebrev”（附函）。
该信件编号为 25/132267，由延期事务办公室（Kontoret for Forlængelse）签发。信件中包含了我的全名、地址、CPR号码，并明确指出我必须在2026年4月28日前作出回复。该信件还正式落款“Med venlig hilsen”。
然而，该信件的正文完全为空，没有任何解释、正文、附件或说明内容，也未说明为何需要我回复。
⸻
后续交涉与官方回应：
2025年4月29日，我主动联系移民局，询问信件的内容与目的。
我收到移民局职员 Chanett Andersen 的回复，她确认我收到了一封“没有任何信息的信件”，并将其归因于系统错误。
但：
• 她并未说明到底是什么类型的系统错误；
• 没有解释这是否是个别事件还是系统性问题；
• 原始来信并未被撤销，也没有发来任何补发或替代的正式通知。
⸻
分析与结论：
尽管这封信未包含直接威胁内容，但它本身是一种极不寻常的行政行为，带有以下令人担忧的特征：
1. 具备完整的法律结构与正式要求（包括强制性回应时限），但却无任何实际内容，制造混乱与心理负担；
2. 在没有正文的情况下却要求我回应，构成一种潜在的心理干预与模糊性压力手段；
3. 此信件的发送时间正好发生在我向联合国人权事务高级专员办公室提交投诉之后；
4. 移民局没有公开承认流程失误，也没有任何官方补救措施，这使得该行为存在刻意或被容许发生的可能性。
基于上述原因，我将此信视为**“低烈度行政恐吓行为”的典型表现，特此请求联合国将该事件正式记录为我案件（编号：UR/CCPR/25/DNK/6）的补充材料之一，视为我提交申诉后可能遭遇国家机构干预的早期信号**。
好的，以下是《Z-2》档案中关于“半夜敲门事件”的正式中文小节草稿，编号为 Zb-2-B。语言保持冷静、逻辑清晰、适用于联合国申诉或档案记录：
⸻
Zb-2-B：凌晨门铃骚扰事件——针对申诉人的模糊式威胁行为
事件时间与情境：
2025年5月3日凌晨3:00至4:00之间，我在家中独自休息期间，遭遇一名陌生男子连续多次按响门铃，持续时间超过30分钟。
该行为发生在深夜，无任何事先通知或明确来访目的，整栋公寓处于安静状态，无邻居目击，也无监控设备记录。
⸻
来人行为描述：
• 来人语气平静，但语言模糊。我刚从睡梦中惊醒，仅听到其似乎自称名为**“Alekes”**；
• 他说过一句“我需要你”，但未解释任何来意、机构、职务身份；
• 当我对其说“你有我电话，那你可以打给我”时，对方保持沉默，随后离开；
• 整个过程中，该男子未表现出醉酒或精神错乱状态，行为理性而目的不明。
⸻
事件分析：
此事件存在多项明显异常之处：
1. 选择凌晨3-4点这一时间段进行长时间门铃骚扰，明显规避目击者，制造心理恐慌感；
2. 对方掌握我的住址和姓名，声称“有我的电话”，但拒绝通过正规方式联系我；
3. 行为持续、沉默、模糊，符合心理干预或测试性骚扰的典型特征；
4. 该事件发生时间紧接着我向联合国提交案件UR/CCPR/25/DNK/6，并向移民局询问空白信件之时，属于高敏感时期；
5. 该行为未能通过任何正式或法律渠道确认目的与合法性。
初步结论：
我认为该事件并非普通随机骚扰，而是具备以下特征的疑似国家相关方或受其指使者的“模糊式恐吓行为”：
• 形式模糊、不构成法律暴力，却足以产生心理压迫；
• 不留物理证据、避免违法记录，造成“可否认性”；
• 与我递交国际申诉时间密切相关，极可能意图制造退缩、恐惧、混乱等反应。
该行为与此前收到的空白正式信件事件（Z-2-A）一同构成一组系统性“非公开报复行为”的早期表现。
我在此请求联合国将此事件一并纳入我案件的附加材料中，并记录我所面临的非直接暴力、但具有现实心理威胁性质的干预行为。
Zb-2-A: The Empty Letter from the Danish Immigration Service – Psychological Pressure via Administrative Form
Incident Background:
On April 28, 2025, I received an official letter from the Danish Immigration Service (Udlændingestyrelsen) titled “Følgebrev” (Cover Letter).
The letter was issued under Case No. 25/132267, and came from the Office for Extension (Kontoret for Forlængelse). It included my full name, address, and CPR number, and specified that I was required to respond no later than April 28, 2026. The letter was formally signed with “Med venlig hilsen.”
However, the content of the letter was completely blank — there was no explanation, no message body, no attached documents, and no indication of what I was expected to respond to.
Follow-up and Official Response:
After receiving this letter, I proactively contacted the Immigration Service to inquire about its meaning and purpose.
On April 29, 2025, I received a reply from Chanett Andersen, an employee of the Immigration Service. She confirmed that I had indeed received a letter “with no content,” and stated that it was the result of a system error.
However:
• No explanation was given as to what type of system error occurred;
• No clarification was provided regarding whether this was a one-time incident or part of a wider issue;
• The original letter was not withdrawn nor replaced with a valid communication.
⸻
Analysis and Conclusion:
Although the letter did not contain any explicit threats, it constitutes a highly irregular administrative act with serious implications:
1. The letter was issued in full legal format and included a formal demand for response, yet contained no content, creating confusion and stress;
2. A legally enforceable reply deadline was applied to a message with no instructions, which I interpret as a form of psychological pressure or intentional administrative disruption;
3. The timing of this communication occurred immediately after I submitted a complaint to the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights;
4. The Danish Immigration Service did not publicly acknowledge the nature of the error, nor issue any procedural correction or withdrawal, raising the possibility that the action was either intentional or tolerated by design.
In light of the above, I classify this incident as an example of low-intensity administrative intimidation, wherein the appearance of legality is used to create psychological stress without direct confrontation.
I respectfully request that the United Nations formally record this incident as a supplementary element of my complaint (Ref: UR/CCPR/25/DNK/6), and treat it as the first stage in a sequence of possible state-affiliated retaliatory behavior following my international appeal.
⸻
Zb-2-B: Late-Night Doorbell Harassment – A Pattern of Ambiguous Threats Against the Complainant
Incident Time and Context:
Between 3:00 AM and 4:00 AM on May 3, 2025, while I was alone at home and asleep, I was subjected to repeated doorbell ringing by an unknown male individual.
The ringing lasted for over 30 minutes, with no prior notice or clear purpose. The apartment building was completely quiet at the time, with no witnesses and no security cameras in place.
⸻
Behavior of the Visitor:
• The man spoke calmly but unclearly. I had just woken up and could only hear him say his name was “Alekes”;
• He said something that sounded like “I need you,” but provided no explanation of who he was, what he wanted, or any organizational affiliation;
• When I replied, “If you have my phone number, then you can call me,” he did not respond and eventually left;
• His behavior was coherent, not intoxicated or irrational, and appeared purposeful despite the vagueness.
⸻
Incident Analysis:
There are several highly suspicious aspects of this event:
1. The incident occurred at 3–4 AM, an unusual time clearly intended to avoid witnesses and maximize psychological impact;
2. The visitor knew my address and claimed to have my phone number, yet refused to use any formal method of contact;
3. The prolonged, silent, ambiguous interaction fits the profile of behavioral harassment or a psychological pressure tactic;
4. The timing of the incident closely follows my submission to the United Nations (UR/CCPR/25/DNK/6) and my inquiry regarding the blank letter from the Danish Immigration Service, making this period highly sensitive;
5. The nature of the incident evades formal classification as illegal, while still delivering a clear psychological and coercive signal.
⸻
Preliminary Conclusion:
I do not believe this was a random occurrence. Instead, it bears the hallmarks of a low-level intimidation effort, possibly involving state actors or individuals acting on their behalf:
• It deliberately avoids overt threats but induces fear, confusion, and isolation;
• It is carefully structured to leave no physical evidence or legal traces, creating plausible deniability;
• It aligns temporally with the escalation of my international complaint, suggesting it is part of a larger campaign of informal retaliation.
This incident, when considered together with the blank letter from the Danish Immigration Service (Z-2-A), forms part of an emerging pattern of soft pressure and psychological harassment.
I respectfully request that the United Nations document this event as a supplementary component of my complaint (UR/CCPR/25/DNK/6) and recognize the non-physical yet real threats I am currently facing as a complainant under state scrutiny.