ECtHR – R.V. v France, Application No. 78514/14, 7 July 2016
| Country of applicant: | Russia |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section) |
| Date of decision: | 07-07-2016 |
| Citation: | European Court of Human Rights, R.V. v. France, Application No. 78514/14, 7 July 2016 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Benefit of doubt
Description
The advantage derived from doubt about guilt, a possible error, or the weight of evidence. “When statements are not susceptible of proof, even with independent research, if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt. The requirement of evidence should thus not be too strictly applied in view of the difficulty of proof inherent in the special situation in which an applicant for refugee status finds himself. Allowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant." |
|
Credibility assessment
Description
Assessment made in adjudicating an application for a visa, or other immigration status, in order to determine whether the information presented by the applicant is consistent and credible. |
|
Protection
Description
A concept that encompasses all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and spirit of human rights, refugee and international humanitarian law. According to Article 2(a) of the Qualification Directive, international protection meansrefugee and subsidiary protection status as defined in (d) and (f). According to Recital 19 of the Qualification Directive “Protection can be provided not only by the State but also by parties or organisations, including international organisations, meeting the conditions of this Directive, which control a region or a larger area within the territory of the State”. According to Annex II of the Asylum Procedures Directive, in the context of safe countries of origin, protection may be provided against persecution or mistreatment by: “(a) the relevant laws and regulations of the country and the manner in which they are applied; (b) observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the ECHR and/or the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and/or the Convention against Torture, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the said European Convention; (c) respect of the non-refoulement principle according to the Geneva Convention; (d) provision for a system of effective remedies against violations of these rights and freedoms. |
|
Torture
Description
“Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession, punishing him/her for an act s/he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.” |
|
Real risk
Description
In order to be eligible for subsidiary protection, a third country national or stateless person must demonstrate that if returned to his or her country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his or her country of former habitual residence, s/he would face a real risk of serious harm as defined in QD Art. 15 and that s/he is unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail her/himself of the protection of that country. The fact that an applicant has already been subject to persecution or serious harm or to direct threats of such persecution or such harm, is a serious indication of the applicant's well-founded fear of persecution or real risk of suffering serious harm, unless there are good reasons to consider that such persecution or serious harm will not be repeated. |
|
Individual threat
Description
An individual threat to a civilian's life or person must be proven in order to establish the serious harm required before an applicant will be eligible for subsidiary protection status on the grounds set out in QD Art. 15(c). “Risks to which a population of a country or a section of the population is generally exposed do normally not create in themselves an individual threat which would qualify as serious harm.” |
Headnote:
The applicant appealed against a deportation order on account of the high risk that he faced of being subject to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR in the case of return to Russia.
Facts:
This case concerns a Russian national from Chechnya. He was friends with a militant leader of the Boevik militant group in Russia and often accommodated him in his village. In August 2005, the group was sentenced, and the childhood friend died. Following this, an enquiry against the applicant was launched, he was arrested in January 2006. During this time, he was detained for two weeks and was tortured and interrogated about his relationship with said childhood friend. In May 2006, he was arrested again and tortured. He was released after ten days after his family paid a ransom. In November 2007, representatives of the Russian government entered the applicant’s home and beat him and his pregnant wife. She was hospitalised and gave birth prematurely, after which the child died. The applicant was confined and tortured. He was released in December 2007, following another payment of ransom by his family. Following these events, he left for Poland and then France.
Upon arrival to France the applicant applied for asylum. This was rejected on the basis that his claims were uncertain and contradictory. The applicant submitted various documents backing his claims, including medical evidence. He was arrested in 2011 for violent behaviour and sentenced to four years in prison. During this time, an order was made for his deportation and he submitted an application for re-examination of his request for asylum arguing that Russian authorities were still looking for him. This was rejected on the basis that he had brought no new information to the claim.
Decision & reasoning:
The application was declared admissible by the Court. The Court considers that it is key for the applicant to bring sufficient evidential elements to the claim to demonstrate that he would be exposed to a risk of being treated in a manner contrary to Article 3 ECHR if the return measure was carried out. Given that asylum seekers often find themselves in this difficult situation, it is often necessary to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of their credibility. The burden is also on the applicant to sufficiently explain any incoherence in their documentation. In general, the existence of a risk of mistreatment should be examined in the light of the general situation in the country and each case should be examined on its facts.
In this case, the situation in Russia was not so grave that to deport the applicant would result in an automatic violation of Article 3 ECHR. The Court is aware that certain areas are more at risk than others and therefore, any risk assessment must be done on an individual basis, bearing in mind that those considered by the authorities as members and relatives of, or those who have assisted, the Chechen resistance, are more at risk. On the facts of this case, the applicant was detained and tortured several times due to connections with the militant group, following which he was still wanted by the authorities. The Court considers the applicant’s account to be credible, primarily on the basis of documented evidence, of which medical reports of scarring consistent with the reported abuse have been particularly persuasive.
As a general rule, the Court considers that national Courts are the best placed to assess not only the facts, but the credibility of accounts made by applicants. Although it also notes that the applicant in this case has given a particularly detailed account on most of the issues at hand. The Court outlines the inconsistencies with the account of the applicant, such as his wife’s hospital admission documentation provided by the applicant which contradicts his account. However, this documentation differs from the applicant’s account in date only, the facts surrounding the events remain the same in that she gave birth prematurely as a result of beatings. The Court also outlines that national Courts may have overlooked some aspects of the claim, such as administrative errors in documentation. The Court observes that the applicant explains the sequence of events in his answers to the questions of the State and justifies why he left Russia without his wife and why he did not immediately consult a doctor in France.
Finally, the Court notes that there is evidence of real risk involved in the applicant’s potential return to Russia, evidenced by summons received by him and his relatives (who testify to the authorities’ continued interest in the applicant).
The Court therefore finds that there would be a real risk of a breach of Article 3 ECHR if the applicant were to be deported.
Outcome:
Application granted.
Observations/comments:
This case summary was written by Ashley E.Mount.
Cited Cases:
Other sources: