ECtHR - Mo. M. v France, Application No. 18372/10
| Country of applicant: | Chad |
| Court name: | ECtHR Fifth Section |
| Date of decision: | 18-04-2013 |
| Citation: | Application No. 18372/10 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports
Description
“Expert medical report used as evidence relevant to the application for international protection. Where psychological elements are relevant, the medical report should provide information on the nature and degree of mental illness and should assess the applicant's ability to fulfil the requirements normally expected of an applicant in presenting his case. The conclusions of the medical report will determine the examiner's further approach.” |
|
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.” |
|
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.” |
|
Return
Description
"In the context of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), the process of going back - whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced - to: - one's country of origin; or - a country of transit in accordance with EU or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements; or - another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he/she will be accepted. There are subcategories of return which can describe the way the return is implemented, e.g. voluntary, forced, assisted and spontaneous return; as well as sub-categories which describe who is participating in the return, e.g. repatriation (for refugees)." |
Headnote:
The case concerns the risk of ill-treatment that the applicant would be exposed to if he were sent back to Chad, where he has been already tortured and summoned by the prosecutorial authorities for alleged collaboration with the rebels.
Facts:
The applicant is a Chadian national, who was suspected of collaboration with the rebels in the Eastern part of the country. He was arrested and tortured by the Chadian secret services. His property was confiscated and destroyed and his family was also threatened and harassed. He fled to France, where he immediately applied for asylum in 2007. His claim was rejected and an order to leave the country was issued against him, which he unsuccessfully appealed. However, he benefited from an interim measure granted by the ECtHR under rule 39.
The applicant alleged that, if he were returned to Chad, he would be at risk of torture. He submitted medical reports that supported his allegations of past torture and summons from the Chadian prosecution services. He also produced new documents that he had not submitted to the French asylum authorities.
Decision & reasoning:
Violation of Article 3
The Court was satisfied that the situation in Chad in relation to torture had not improved with respect to reports attesting to torture practices the Court had before it.
The Court also gave credit to the applicant’s claim that he had been tortured himself in Chad, relying on the medical reports the applicant had produced.
Finally, the Court observed that the reasoning of the French authorities that had discarded a risk of torture for the applicant upon return had been very succinct and concerned only the absence of evidence. Therefore, the Court could not rely on the assessment of the French authorities. Moreover, the applicant had produced new evidence before the ECtHR that the French authorities had not been able to analyse. The Court concluded that there was a real risk of torture for the applicant if he were returned to Chad.
Outcome:
Violation of Article 3 if the applicant was returned to Chad.
Just satisfaction: The ruling with respect to Article 3 constitutes sufficient just satisfaction in itself.
Observations/comments:
- Interim measure under rule 39 granted. It shall remain in force until the judgment becomes final.
- The Court accepted the applicant’s request to keep his identity undisclosed under rule 47(3).
Cited Cases:
| Cited Cases |
| ECtHR - Klaas v Germany, Application No. 15473/89 |
| ECtHR - B.A. v. France, Application No. 14951/09 |
Other sources:
- Security Council resolution 1913 (2010) [on extension of the mandate of the UN Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT)]
- UN Committee against Torture, Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under Article 19 of the Convention: Chad, 22 September 2008 (CAT/C/TCD/1)
- UN Committee against Torture, Concluding Observations on Chad, 4 June 2009 (CAT/C/TCD/CO/1)
- US Department of State, 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices –Chad, 24 May 2012.