Case summaries

The removal of the author to Greece would amount to a breach of Articles 2 (c)-(f), 3, and 12 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, because the Swiss authorities failed to consider her vulnerable status as a survivor of gender-based violence (GBV) and the real, personal, and foreseeable risk that the author would face as an unaccompanied victim of such violence and suffering from PTSD and depression.

The Committee, invoking the principle of non-refoulement and recognising gender-based violence as discrimination under Article 1 of the Convention, determined that removing the author to Greece would violate Articles 2 (c)-(f), 3, and 12 of the Convention due to the state party's failure to conduct an individualized, gender-sensitive, and trauma-informed assessment of the real and foreseeable risks the author faces as a woman experiencing gender-based violence.

The return of a survivor of trafficking and gender-based violence to the country of original harm under the Dublin III Regulation violates Articles 2(d) and 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, unless the state conducts an individualized, trauma-informed, and gender-sensitive assessment of the real risk of retraumatization.

Relying on general assumptions about adequate reception conditions in the receiving state is insufficient where capacity gaps in specialized psychological care exist. The non-refoulement obligation requires assessing real, personal, and foreseeable risks of gender-based violence, including from non-state actors, and prohibits removal where formal legal protections cannot guarantee safety given the individual's extreme vulnerability.

When national administrations assess a request for international protection, they must take more precautions when investigating the credibility of facts from the applicant’s story in case of post-traumatic stress and female genital mutilation.

The authorities must comply with their duties to cooperate with the applicant in establishing the relevant facts of the case by being cautious and meticulous before concluding that certain contradictions and inaccuracies exist.

In a case of an asylum application on the grounds of gender based persecution, supported by medical reports, the Belgian Council of State held that it belongs to the asylum authorities to investigate the origin of injuries, whose nature and seriousness imply a presumption of treatment contrary to article 3 ECHR and to assess the risks they reveal.

Without this assessment, the judge cannot legally conclude that the Applicant does not establish that he has been persecuted or has suffered serious harm or been subjected to direct threats of such persecution or harm.

A Dublin transfer to Bulgaria is annulled due to the vulnerability of the applicant combined with the risk of inadequate psychological treatment in Bulgaria, the applicant’s first country of asylum, and the lack sufficient individual guarantees in case of Dublin transfer.

The fact that an asylum applicant has already been persecuted in the past or has already suffered serious harm is a serious indication of the well-founded fear of the claimant, or of the real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there is good reason to believe that this persecution or serious harm will not happen again.

When an applicant has suffered female genital mutilation in her country of origin, there is a rebuttable presumption that she will again be the victim of such persecution because of her membership in the social group of Ivorian women.

A Guinean woman who has been forced into marriage at a young age and subsequently harassed into marrying her late husband’s brother, is a refugee under article 1, section A §2 of the Geneva Convention. She risks being persecuted by reason of her membership in the social group of women, and considering the regular violation of women’s rights occuring in Guinea.

A medical examination to assess vulnerability was requested by an applicant in administrative detention. This demand was not examined by the doctor in charge in the detention facility. Therefore, the court of appeal refused an extension of the applicant’s administration detention and ordered their release.