Netherlands - District Court Haarlem, 27 December 2010, AWB 10/25595
| Country of Decision: | Netherlands |
| Country of applicant: | Iran |
| Court name: | District Court Haarlem |
| Date of decision: | 27-12-2010 |
| Citation: | AWB 10/25595 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Benefit of doubt
Description
The advantage derived from doubt about guilt, a possible error, or the weight of evidence. “When statements are not susceptible of proof, even with independent research, if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt. The requirement of evidence should thus not be too strictly applied in view of the difficulty of proof inherent in the special situation in which an applicant for refugee status finds himself. Allowance for such possible lack of evidence does not, however, mean that unsupported statements must necessarily be accepted as true if they are inconsistent with the general account put forward by the applicant." |
|
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. |
Headnote:
When no travel documents have been submitted the applicant can be held accountable for his failure to do so according to Art 311 (f) of the Aliens Act as the conditions of Art 4.5 of the Qualification Directive have not been established.
Facts:
The applicant had converted to Christianity. On the 4th November 2009, he joined a mass demonstration. He had taken with him a poster of President Ahmadinejad. During the demonstration he held up the poster and tore it up. Two security guards recorded the act with their mobile phones. As a result the applicant ran away and fled Iran. The applicant had failed to submit documents relating to his flight (travel documents). Under Dutch asylum law, a failure to submit such documents leads to a higher burden of proof with respect to an assessment of credibility. The applicant’s account was found not credible and his application was therefore rejected.
Decision & reasoning:
On appeal the court considered Art 31.2(f) of the Aliens Acts, which deals with the situation where the applicant in support of his application fails to submit documents necessary for the assessment of his application while not being able to demonstrate that he cannot be held accountable for the absence of these documents.
In that situation, it was found that, the applicant had not fulfilled the conditions as set out in Art 4.5 of the Qualification Directive which demands that the applicant shall submit all of the relevant information in its possession and shall give a satisfactory explanation about the absence of other relevant elements.
Outcome:
The appeal was dismissed.