Netherlands - District Court Assen, 17 January 2008, AWB 07/35612

Facts:

The applicant was from Manipay, Sri Lanka and belongs to the group of the Ceylon Tamils. He was arrested and detained because his two sons had joined the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2001. In October 2006 he was arrested and detained for 17 days after attending his son’s funeral. The applicant left Sri Lanka in August 2007. The applicant claimed that he fears persecution or inhuman treatment on return to Sri Lanka, due to the fact that his sons are members of the LTTE. He based his asylum claim on both Art 3 of the ECHR and Art 15(c) of the Qualification Directive. The application was rejected because it was decided that he had an internal flight alternative.

Decision & reasoning:

The district court considered that Tamils are, according to the respondent’s policy, a risk group that requires extra attention. Regarding the respondent’s claim that there is possible internal protection in Colombo, the district court stated:

“The district court deems the referral, in this context, to the letter of the secretary of state of the 12th July 2007, in which it is stated that there is internal protection regarding the generally unsafe situation in the north and east, insufficient. In this context the district court refers to Chapter C4/2.2.2 of the Aliens Circular 2000, which states that in assessing whether a part of the country of origin can be seen as an internal protection alternative, account must be taken of the general circumstances in that part of the country and the applicant’s personal circumstances at the time of the decision. The district court cannot defer from the appealed decision that the respondent has taken the aforementioned policy into consideration. Although the applicant stayed in Colombo for 10 days in October/November 2006 and the authorities knew about this, the district court, in this context, deems the fact that the applicant did not report to the authorities before his departure in August 2007 and only stayed with the travel agent due to the worsened situation in his country of origin at that time, of importance."

The district court concluded that the respondent had insufficiently reasoned why the applicant was not eligible for asylum due to an internal protection alternative.

Outcome:

The appeal of the applicant was allowed. 

Subsequent proceedings:

In a further appeal before the Council of State, from the Minister for Immigration and Asylum, this judgment was annulled. However this further appeal did not concern the ruling on the internal protection alternative. For that part the decision of the district court therefore still stands.