Case summaries

When assessing an application for refugee status, what is important is whether the acts of persecution were carried out for the reasons identified in the Geneva Convention, and not whether or to what extent the victim of persecution can be identified with those reasons.

Fear of persecution within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Geneva Convention need not mean that persecution is certain or even probable. Recognition of refugee status is already justified where there are reasonable grounds for asserting the possibility of persecution. “Possibility” means that persecution may take place although it is neither certain nor probable, and the “reasonable grounds” requirement indicates the need to establish real and objective evidence of the risk of persecution. The plausibility of the threat is shown by the situation in the country of origin of the person applying for refugee status as well as that person’s experience to date.

Where the actors of persecution feared are themselves state agents consideration must still be given to whether the applicant can avail himself of protection, but this assessment must be made in context. There will be a spectrum of cases between, on the one extreme, those where the only ill-treatment is by non-state actors and, on the other extreme, those where the state itself is wholly complicit in the ill-treatment.

Applicant complained under Articles 2, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention in relation to the death of her partner while in police custody.

The Court of Appeal held that an asylum-seeker unable to return to his country of origin may indeed be entitled to recognition as a refugee provided only that the fear or actuality of past persecution still plays a causative part in his or her presence here. Further, the refusal of the State of nationality to permit return can constitute persecution.

This case involved a Somali refugee in Austria whose refugee status was ordered as forfeited after a criminal conviction. Because of the absolute nature of Art. 3, the Court found his criminal conviction immaterial and that he still faced a serious risk of persecution in Somalia, therefore Austria would breach its obligations under Art. 3 if his deportation was executed. 

The five applicants were asylum seekers from Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity whose requests were denied in the UK and had been returned to Sri Lanka. The Court rejected their allegations that a breach of Art. 3 due to risk of ill-treatment as well as of a breach of Art. 13 because of ineffective judicial remedy had been committed by the UK.