I.K. v. Switzerland (No. 21417/17), 18 January 2018
| Country of applicant: | Sierra Leone |
| Court name: | European Court of Human Rights, third section |
| Date of decision: | 18-01-2018 |
| Citation: | No. 21417/17 |
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. |
|
Individual assessment
Description
The carrying out of an assessment on an individual and personal basis. In relation to applications for international protection, per Article 4(3) of the Qualification Directive, this includes taking into account: (a) all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision; (b) the relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant; “(c) the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant, including factors such as background, gender and age, so as to assess whether, on the basis of the applicant's personal circumstances, the acts to which the applicant has been or could be exposed would amount to persecution or serious harm; (d) whether the applicant's activities since leaving the country of origin were engaged in for the sole or main purpose of creating the necessary conditions for applying for international protection, so as to assess whether these activities will expose the applicant to persecution or serious harm if returned to that country; (e) whether the applicant could reasonably be expected to avail himself of the protection of another country where he could assert citizenship.” |
|
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." |
|
Manifestly unfounded application
Description
Member States may consider an application for protection as manifestly unfounded, where it is defined as such in the national legislation, and: (a) the applicant clearly does not qualify as a refugee or for refugee status in a Member State under Directive 2004/83/EC; or (b) in cases of unfounded applications for asylum where any of these circumstances apply: - the applicant, in submitting his/her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant or of minimal relevance to the examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC; or - the application is considered to be unfounded because the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of Articles 29, 30 and 31, or - the application is considered to be unfounded because the country which is not a Member State, is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, without prejudice to Article 28(1);or - the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or - the applicant has filed another application for asylum stating other personal data; or - the applicant has not produced information establishing with a reasonable degree of certainty his/her identity or nationality, or it is likely that, in bad faith, he/she has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his/her identity or nationality; or - the applicant has made inconsistent, contradictory, improbable or insufficient representations which make his/her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to his/her having been the object of persecution referred to in Directive 2004/83/EC; or - the applicant has submitted a subsequent application which does not raise any relevant new elements with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin; or - the applicant has failed without reasonable cause to make his/her application earlier, having had opportunity to do so; or - the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his/her removal; or - the applicant has failed without good reason to comply with obligations referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC or in Articles 11(2)(a) and (b) and 20(1)of this Directive; or - the applicant entered the territory of the Member State unlawfully or prolonged his/her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself/herself to the authorities and/or filed an application for asylum as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his/her entry; or - the applicant is a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security and public order under national law; or - the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his/her fingerprints taken in accordance with relevant Community and/or national legislation; or - the application was made by an unmarried minor to whom Article 6(4)(c) applies, after the application of the parents or parent responsible for the minor has been rejected and no relevant new elements were raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin. In line with UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 30 (XXXIV) of 1983, cases that are “clearly abusive” (i.e. clearly fraudulent), or “manifestly unfounded”, (i.e. not related to the grounds for granting international protection), may be considered for accelerated procedures. Similarly appeal or review procedures may also be more simplified than those generally available in the case of other rejected asylum applications. |
|
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. |
|
Safe country of origin
Description
"A country where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Directive 2004/83/EC, no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. In making this assessment, account is taken, inter alia, of the extent to which protection is 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 European Convention on Human Rights (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.” |
|
Refugee Status
Description
The recognition by a Member State of a third-country national or stateless person as a refugee. |
|
Discrimination
Description
Any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms. |
|
Sexual orientation
Description
"Sexual orientation refers to: ‘each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender’." According to Article 10(1)(d) of the Qualification Directive: “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 Article” |
Headnote:
The applicant, a national from Sierra Leone who claimed asylum in Switzerland on the grounds of persecution owing to his homosexuality, is found not to be at risk of treatment prohibited under Article 3 of the Convention in case of return to his country of origin. In substance, the Court recalls that national authorities are in the best position to carry out this risk assessment and recalls the UNHCR Guiding Principles on asylum claims based on sexual orientation, which require the evaluation of the risk through individual assessment, in addition to the examination of the country’s general situation.
Facts:
The applicant, a national of Sierra Leone, claimed asylum in Switzerland in 2012 on the grounds of being persecuted in his country of origin on account of his homosexuality. Following the rejection of his asylum claim in 2014 by the Federal Office of Migration (the competent authority at the time), the Federal Administrative Tribunal (TAF) also dismissed the applicant’s appeal in 2017. It found that the applicant’s declarations were contradictory, and the evidence provided was insufficient to demonstrate either his membership to a LGBTI group, or an alleged previous arrest on the grounds of his homosexuality. Moreover, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s return to Sierra Leone would not violate the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Hence, the applicant filed a request to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
The applicant argues that his return to Sierra Leone would amount to a violation of Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention, respectively prohibiting degrading and inhuman ill-treatments, and discrimination.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court first recalls that it falls to the applicant to produce evidence of his risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited under Article 3. It adds that the existence of the risk of being subjected to such treatments must be corroborated not only by the country’s general situation, but also by the applicant’s own allegations supported by further evidence.
Hence, even though the Court acknowledges the criminalisation of homosexuality in Sierra Leone’s legislation, it observes that the non-application of such criminalisation calls for additional evidence that the applicant’s return would indeed create a risk for him to be subjected to treatments prohibited under Article 3. In that regard, referring to the UNHRC Guiding Principles, the Court notes that the credibility assessment of running the above-mentioned risk must be carried out individually, with national authorities being in the best position to assess such credibility, the Court not having the role to substitute its own examination.
Consequently, in the light of the claim’s assessment by the SEM and the TAF, the Court notes that the applicant’s grounds for asylum were rightly evaluated in a sensitive context involving personal questions, reaching the same conclusion that the declarations and evidence provided were not sufficient to prove a real and genuine risk of treatments prohibited by Article 3.
Finally, the Court found that it did not need to assess the applicant’s alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention as it dealt with it under its assessment of an alleged violation of Article 3.
Outcome:
Application found to be manifestly unfounded
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
Cited Cases:
Other sources:
- Queeramnesty, Position Statement
- United Nations Committee on Human Rights, Final Observations of 17 April 2014
- U.S. State Department, 2016 Report on Human Rights Practices in Sierra Leone, 3 March 2017
- Amnesty International, 2016/2017 International Report, 22 February 2017
- Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2016, 23 August 2016