Finland - Helsinki Administrative Court, 23 March 2011, 11/0355/1
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Actors of protection
Description
"Actors such as: (a) the State; or (b) parties or organisations, including international organisations, controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State; who take reasonable steps to prevent the persecution or suffering of serious harm, inter alia, by operating an effective legal system for the detection, prosecution and punishment of acts constituting persecution or serious harm, and the applicant has access to such protection." |
|
Actor of persecution or serious harm
Description
Per Art. 6 QD actors who subject an individual to acts of serious harm (as defined in Art. 15). Actors of persecution or serious harm include: (a) the State; (b) parties or organisations controlling the State or a substantial part of the territory of the State; (c) non-State actors, if it can be demonstrated that the actors mentioned in (a) and (b), including international organisations, are unable or unwilling to provide protection against persecution or serious harm as defined in Article 7. |
|
Internal protection
Description
Where in a part of the country of origin there is no well-founded fear of being persecuted or no real risk of suffering serious harm and the applicant can reasonably be expected to stay in that part of the country. |
|
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. |
|
Membership of a particular social group
Description
One of the grounds of persecution specified in the refugee definition per Article 1A ofthe1951 Refugee Convention. According to the Qualification Directive, membership of a particular social group means members who share an innate characteristic, or a common background that cannot be changed, or share a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it, and that group has a distinct identity in the relevant country, because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society. Depending on the circumstances in the country of origin, a particular social group might include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation cannot be understood to include acts considered to be criminal in accordance with national law of the Member States: Gender related aspects might be considered, without by themselves alone creating a presumption for the applicability of this concept. |
Headnote:
The Helsinki Administrative Court held that the applicant was not considered at risk of persecution as it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities were aware of the applicant’s extramarital affair and the applicant was able to rely on her friends for support in different parts of Iran.
Facts:
The applicant had an extramarital affair with a man in Iran. The affair came to the attention of the applicant’s husbands’ and the applicant’s relatives, as well as the authorities. The applicant was summoned to court to respond. The applicant’s family threatened the applicant’s life once the issue became known.
Decision & reasoning:
According to the Administrative Court, it was unlikely that the Iranian authorities had knowledge of the applicant’s alleged extramarital affair, or at least, that they would have sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Therefore, the applicant could not be seen to be at risk of persecution from the authorities, or at real risk of suffering harsh punishment for adultery under Iran’s laws. The applicant had relied on her friends in different parts of Iran for protection, and was able to live in Iran for several years after the affair was exposed. Taking the applicant’s social background and place of residence (a large city) into account, it was unlikely that the applicant would be at risk of facing honour-based violence.
Outcome:
The Administrative Court rejected the appeal. The applicant was not granted a residence permit based on international protection, or other grounds.
Subsequent proceedings:
An appeal is pending before the Supreme Administrative Court which has granted interim measures in the case.