Case summaries
This case concerns the definition of the term “internal armed conflict” within the meaning of Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive:
- When defining the term “international or internal armed conflict” as set out in Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive one has to take into account international law, in particular the four Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977.
- An internal armed conflict within the meaning of Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive does not necessarily have to extend to the whole territory of a state.
- An examination of the requirements for subsidiary protection under Art 15 (c) of the Qualification Directive is not precluded if the authorities have issued a general “suspension of deportation”.
The situation of the homosexuals which currently prevails in Iraq enables them to be considered as forming a group whose members are likely to face acts of such gravity that they may amount to persecution in the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The case concerns the extent to which decision-makers should take into account a change of circumstances or situation in the country of origin.
The Supreme Administrative Court defined the standard of proof of a “reasonable likelihood” of persecution and a “real risk” of serious harm. Where these criteria are met, the court must give precedence to international commitments and not apply the mandatory national rules of procedure (e.g. for an action that is out of time).
Homosexuals in Morocco form a social group within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention for reasons of common characteristics which define them in the eyes of Moroccan criminal law and society.
The question as to whether or not an armed conflict existed has to be answered according to humanitarian law (common Art 3 of the Geneva Convention and the second additional protocol).