Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 29 June 2010, 10/0868/1
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
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. |
|
Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Description
A form of serious harm for the purposes of the granting of subsidiary protection. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Celibici defined cruel or inhuman treatment as ‘an intentional act or omission, that is an act which, judged objectively, is deliberate and not accidental, that causes serious mental or physical suffering or injury or constitutes a serious attack on human dignity.’ “Ill-treatment means all forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including corporal punishment, which deprives the individual of its physical and mental integrity." |
|
Persecution Grounds/Reasons
Description
Per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention, one element of the refugee definition is that the persecution feared is “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion“. Member States must take a number of elements into account when assessing the reasons for persecution as per Article 10 of the Qualification Directive. |
|
Refugee sur place
Description
In the EU context, a person granted refugee status based on international protection needs which arose sur place, i.e. on account of events which took place since they left their country of origin. In a global context, a person who is not a refugee when they leave their country of origin, but who becomes a refugee, that is, acquires a well-founded fear of persecution, at a later date. Synonym: Objective grounds for seeking asylum occurring after the applicant's departure from his/her country of origin Note: Refugees sur place may owe their fear of persecution to a coup d'état in their home country, or to the introduction or intensification of repressive or persecutory policies after their departure. A claim in this category may also be based on bona fide political activities, undertaken in the country of residence or refuge. |
|
Serious harm
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. Per Art.15:"(a) death penalty or execution; or (b) torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of an applicant in the country of origin; or (c) serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict." “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.” |
|
Subsidiary Protection
Description
The protection given to a third-country national or a stateless person who does not qualify as a refugee but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, 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, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm as defined in Article 15 of 2004/83/EC, and to whom Article 17(1) and (2) of 2004/83/EC do not apply, and is unable, or, owing to such risk, unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country.” “Note: The UK has opted into the Qualification Directive (2004/83/EC) but does not (legally) use the term Subsidiary Protection. It is believed that the inclusion of Humanitarian Protection within the UK Immigration rules fully transposes the Subsidiary Protection provisions of the Qualification Directive into UK law. |
|
Religion
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition under Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive, the concept of religion includes in particular the holding of theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, the participation in, or abstention from, formal worship in private or in public, either alone or in community with others, other religious acts or expressions of view, or forms of personal or communal conduct based on or mandated by any religious belief. |
|
Political Opinion
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive the concept of political opinion includes holding an opinion, thought or belief on a matter related to potential actors of persecution and to their policies or methods, whether or not that opinion, thought or belief has been acted upon by the applicant. |
Headnote:
The applicant, from Iran, claimed asylum based on his political opinion and religious belief (the applicant converted from Islam to Christianity on arrival in Finland). Refugee status was refused as the applicant failed to establish that he had come to the attention of the authorities through political activities or religious practices. A residence permit was granted based on subsidiary protection. The Court relied on the applicant’s conversion to Christianity, evidence of harassment of Christians in Iran and the overall deteriorating human rights situation.
Facts:
The applicant had studied Christianity in Iran but officially converted after his arrival in Finland. Additionally, the applicant supplemented his asylum claim with information regarding his involvement in a students’ union, whose activities resulted in problems with the authorities. The applicant claimed he was arrested four times for his activities in the students' union.The Finnish Immigration Service rejected the applicant’s claim for asylum and decided to return the applicant to Iran.
Decision & reasoning:
According to the Administrative Court, the applicant did not provide enough evidence on the description of events concerning his involvement in the students’ union and thus was not deemed credible. The Court did not accept that the applicant had previously come to the attention of the authorities and concluded that he was therefore not in need of asylum or international protection (on this ground).
The Court cited a UK Home Office Country of Origin Information report on Iran, according to which the Iranian government continuously and systematically infringes the rights of its citizens to religious freedom. In recent years, the situation has worsened. The Court also noted that the Iranian parliament is currently working on new legislation which would make converting from Islam punishable by death, according to Iranian penal law (not only Sharia Law).
The Court also cited UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection: Religion-Based Refugee Claims 28.4.2004, which states that those who convert from Islam to Christianity, or some other religion, after entering the country of asylum should be evaluated on a case by case basis. What needs to be considered were the reasons behind the conversion, the applicant’s individual circumstances as well as how widely the event has been publicised. Reports that Iranian embassies monitor Iranian citizens activities abroad were also noted by the Court.
Based on the applicant’s description of the reasons for his conversion to Christianity, and his religious beliefs, the Administrative Court held that the applicant’s conversion to Christianity was credible. The Administrative Court held there was no proof that the applicant’s conversion had come to the attention of the Iranian authorities by way of his political activities, religious practices or some other means. The Court refused to grant the applicant asylum based on his conversion to Christianity.
However, it was held that the applicant’s conversion to Christianity may in the future, come to the attention of the Iranian authorities through a variety of means. Therefore, the applicant’s conversion to Christianity, the recent overall worsening of the human rights situation in Iran, as well as particularly the increase in harassment of Christians taken togehter in this case form a situation which might lead to a threat of inhuman treatment in Iran. The Court held that as a Muslim who converted to Christianity, the applicant cannot be considered as able to return to his country of origin without a risk that he would face a real danger of suffering serious harm. The applicant should therefore be granted a residence permit based on subsidiary protection status.
Outcome:
The applicant was granted a residence permit based on subsidiary protection status.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Other sources:
UK Home Office Country of Origin Information report Iran, 26 January 2010
Amnesty International: Death Sentences and Executions in 2009
U.S. Department of State: 2009 Human Rights Report Iran, 11.3.2010
UNHCR Guidelines on International Protection No. 6: Religion-Based Refugee Claims under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, 28 April 2004, HCR/GIP/04/06