|
Concepts:
|
Civil and political rights, risk of denial of; Failure of state to protect; Freedom of religion, risk of denial of; Human rights; Persecution; Protection, failure of; Religion; Religion, freedom of, risk of denial of; Rights, civil and political, risk of denial of; State, unwillingness to protect; Worship, right of, risk of denial of
|
|
Hathaway Numbers:
|
3.0, 3.1.4, 3.2.1, 4.0, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5, 5.0, 5.3
|
|
Summary in Primary Language:
|
 read more
|
|
Additional Legal Information:
|
The applicants’ appeals against the SSHD’s refusal of their claims for asylum were dismissed by the First-Tier Tribunal. The claims...The applicants’ appeals against the SSHD’s refusal of their claims for asylum were dismissed by the First-Tier Tribunal. The claims come before the Upper Tribunal following a grant of permission to appeal those dismissals.
Based upon a range of evidence of deteriorating conditions for Ahmadis in Pakistan, the Tribunal takes the opportunity to replace the existing country guidance (paragraphs 118-127).
The Tribunal also gives legal guidance on the approach to dealing with claims based on persecution for reasons of religion. On the approach to claims where a person does not practice their religion openly owing to a fear of persecution, the Tribunal holds that the Court of Justice of the EU decision in Federal Republic of Germany v Y (C-71/11) & Z (C-99/11) does not suggest a different approach from that set out by the UK Supreme Court in HJ (Iran). Moreover, it finds that there is
‘...no basis for distinguishing interference with core aspects from interference with marginal areas of the right to freedom of religion. This is because of the broad definition of religion in Art 10(1)(b) of the Directive.’
Additionally, it rejects the argument that unenforced legislation – however, restrictive of rights – can ever in itself amount to persecution. Rather, it is the ‘consequences’ of that legislation that are important – presumably the Tribunal here has in mind not only situations where the legislation is enforced but also where it sends a signal to agents of persecution that their actions are tolerated or encouraged (paragraphs 97-100).
Finally, the Tribunal observes that, whilst it is unhelpful to talk about laws per se being persecutory, ‘the extent to which they adhere to international human rights norms is a relevant consideration in deciding whether the ways the laws are applied is persecutory’ (paragraph 113).
Against the backcloth of its country guidance findings, the Tribunal examines and allows each of the applicants’ appeals, recognising their refugee status read more
|