Case summaries

Refusal to perform compulsory basic military service cannot be considered as a reason for granting asylum, particularly if such a refusal is not connected with manifested political or religious beliefs.

The 1951 Refugee Convention does not provide protection in respect of claims of conscientious objectors who feared imprisonment for their refusal to undertake military service where there is no alternative service offered in national law. This was the position even if that objection is to all forms of military service and is absolute. The right to conscientious objection was not yet protected in international human rights law and was yet to emerge as a principle of customary international law. A claim may succeed if the applicant would be required, in the course of military service, to conduct military action that breached the basic rules of human conduct or if the punishment they would receive for refusal to serve was discriminatory or disproportionate. Secondly, when assessing whether persecution was “for” a Convention reason the decision-maker should ask the question of “what was the real reason for the persecution?”. The decision-maker should not limit the enquiry to the persecutor’s motivation but should look for the effective reason or reasons.

The present case, which ended in a friendly settlement between the parties, concerned the allegations of a Russian national that he would be exposed to ill-treatment if expelled to Russia.

Turkey’s continual and severe failure to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances of disappearance of Greek-Cypriots, who were at the time under the control of its agents, constituted a violation of Articles 2,3 and 5 of the ECHR. The circumscription of freedom of movement, religion and association of Greek-Cypriots in Northern Greece constituted violations of Articles 9 and 10 and the continual violation of Article 1 Protocol 1 by virtue of preventing Greek Cypriot owners from having access to, control and use of their property was also found by the Court.

In assessing claims based on political opinion, a broad approach needed to be adopted to ensure that the object and purpose of the 1951 Refugee Convention was met.  Political opinion could be actual or imputed and had to be assessed in the context of the society that the applicant had fled.  Political opinion should not be restricted to issues relating to party politics nor, in the context of persecution non-state actors of persecution, was it helpful to identify those who were on the side of the forces of “law and order”.

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.