Full Determination

Back to Highlights

For the Appellant: Miss G Bruce of Counsel instructed by Messrs Alida Guest, Solicitors

For the Respondent: Mr A Fraser, Home Office Presenting Officer

Interpreter: Ms J H Straker (French)

The appellant is a citizen of the Cote d'Ivorie who appeals against the decision of the Secretary of State of 27 January 1997 to give directions for her removal from the United Kingdom and to refuse her asylum.

 The appellant was represented before me by Miss Bruce of Counsel and the respondent by Mr Fraser of the Home Office.

 There are before me two letters of refusal in this case dated respectively 11 November 1996 and 18 November 1998.

 I have before me additionally a very significant number of documents relating to the appellant and in particular her claim to have been raped, and background documentary evidence relating to the Cote d'Ivoire much of which is out of date. Some newspaper reports have however been produced relating to October 1998. I have read all of the documentary evidence.

I heard evidence from two witnesses the first being Cristel Amiss of the Black Women's Rape Action Project. In essence she spoke to her report of 12 November 1998. She is of the view that the appellant is suffering from rape trauma syndrome and she believes that the appellant could not survive if returned to the Cote d'Ivoire particularly in the knowledge that her assailant would not be brought to trial. Miss Amiss appears to believe that the appellant would be unlikely to recover from the rape trauma syndrome without the resources and counselling that she has here.

 I then heard evidence from the appellant.

 Her claim is as set out in her witness statement. In essence she joined FESCI in 1982 because everyone was required to and in 1990 became involved with FESCI. Her husband was already a member and the appellant took part in her first meetings in November 1990. In February 1991 a meeting was held which was interrupted by loubards supported by the military and the police. The appellant ran away but was hit on the shoulder. At the beginning of 1991 she joined the FPI of which party her husband was also a member. She was not active in that party because she was a student. She explains that all of her identity documents indicate that she was employed as a radio operator and not a student.

 The appellant described the events of May 1991 when a march took place. The appellant was beaten but managed to escape. On the evening of that day the appellant and her husband were attacked by the military and loubards They were beaten and the appellant was raped. They could not go to hospital because the military and loubards were guarding the main hospitals and they were frightened of arrest. The appellant stayed with her mother in Abidjan at her cousin's house. She returned to the Yopougon campus on 24 May 1991 to participate in a march which called for the resignation of the Minister of Education but was again disrupted by the military and loubards That was the last march the appellant attended as her mother insisted that she rest in an attempt to convalesce.

 The appellant's husband was arrested on 18 November 1991. The appellant in her witness statement said that she had no further information about him until two months later when there was a brief radio announcement which stated that certain prisoners had escaped. Although no names were mentioned she doubted that her husband was amongst the escapees, but she continued to look for him as she knew that he would not be able to come to the university campus. However on understanding the position she discovered that her husband had in fact escaped and that was the last information that she received from her husband's sister prior to leaving Abidjan herself. I note that she has told Dr Hinshelwood of the Medical Foundation that she believes that her husband is now in Brazil. She claims that at the beginning of 1992 the military searched her room looking for her husband. Later her cousin's home was searched with the same aim.

  Thereafter arrangements were made for the appellant to leave the country to come to the United Kingdom. This took about five months as the appellant's mother had to obtain money to pay for the trip. When she reached the United Kingdom on 27 September 1992 despite the fact that she knew she was going to claim asylum, she did not make that application because she wanted to get into the country first.

She also thought that she might be able to return to the Cote d'Ivoire and towards the end of her holiday she contacted her mother to find out what the situation was in Abidjan. She was told that there was no news of her husband and it was suggested that she stayed longer in the United Kingdom. As a result of this the appellant sought advice of solicitors and an application for asylum was made. The appellant believes that she cannot return to the Ivory Coast because the government still pursues FESCI members there and she believes that she would be identified and would be arrested and detained. She does not believe that there have been any changes in the attitude of the political party in power towards FESCI members despite the fact that FESCI has been recognised. She believed that in secret there will still be arrests of students as those in power cannot tolerate criticism. She suggested it would not be possible for the government to believe that FESCI does not pose a threat to them in a short space of time.

 In cross-examination the appellant explained that she came to the United Kingdom rather than fly on to another African country because her mother had a friend here and it was thought that it was best and fastest for her in the circumstances. She explains that she was in fear when she left the Cote d'Ivoire. There is some slight discrepancy between her evidence today and that at interview where she initially said that when she left the Cote d'Ivoire she intended to seek asylum in the United Kingdom. In evidence today she said that she intended to come for a month's holiday. She was asked to explain the apparent contradiction and gave an exceedingly long and very vague answer. She was asked again why she did not mention her membership of the FPI at interview and she said she did not know if she had mentioned it or not, but she gave her membership card in with a number of papers to the Interviewing Officer. That appears to be correct but it does not explain why she failed to mention it. She claims to be more or less up to date with the situation in the Cote d'lvoire and acknowledges that the government is prepared to accept the claims of the students and also that the ban on FESCI has been lifted and that FESCI have lifted the boycott on classes. Notwithstanding that she said that the situation is not fully resolved. She acknowledges that the government is prepared to accept that the FPI have legitimacy.

 The appellant was asked if she stayed at her mother's village when a reference to it was made at C11, Question 62. Initially she said 'yes' and then said that she moved from village to village for about six months running because of fear of her problems. It was put to her that in answer to Question 64 she said there were no problems in the village but now she was saying that she had to run from village to village and she was asked to explain that sentence. She said that she was frightened in the village. The question was repeated. Again the appellant refused to answer it in essence and said that the interpreter was a man. When I finally put the question to her in very blunt terms, she said that she did run from village to village. When asked why she did not mention it before, she said that it perhaps had just escaped her during the course of the explanation and that she just did not mention it. She confirmed that the authorities did not come to look for her whilst she was in the village or villages, but she believed that they might.

 The appellant claims that she got a passport in 1991 because the passport covers had to be changed and she had hers changed. She had previously travelled to Paris on holiday. She had left from Abidjan airport and had no problems at the airport. There is some discrepancy as to whether it was her mother or husband who paid for the ticket. She has variously said it was her mother and her husband. She appeared to be quite irate at being on that and said that it was someone from her family who paid for the ticket.

 She then went on to say that she was in fear at the time and she just said whatever came into her head as she simply wanted to get the questions out of the way.

 In re-examination she said she was frightened when she left the Cote d'lvoire and had no idea whether she would go back or not. She was asked why she is afraid given that FESCI have entered into dialogue with the government and she said that it is because it is the same government. She claims it has not changed and ordinary people still disappear. She refers to the disappearance of the President of the RDR. When asked if she felt safe in her mother's village she said she went from village to village and could not have felt safe despite the fact that she was staying with family members.

Mr Fraser in submission conceded that the appellant may have been raped but submits that that is not persecution. He suggested it would have been carried out by rogue elements of the military and that there is no indication that the authorities would support that. The appellant has said today that she left for a holiday and obviously intended to return to Cote d'lvoire. She later said that she decided to claim asylum after she had spoken to her mother. The appellant does not fear the authorities per se. Mr Fraser reminded me of the discrepancies in the appellant's evidence such as who paid for her ticket, and whether or not she had problems in her mother's village as also for what purpose she came to the United Kingdom initially. The appellant left on a passport in her own identity without any difficulties and on the objective evidence Mr Fraser suggested that this appellant has no reason to have any fear were she to be returned. He suggested that her claim lacks credibility and urges me to dismiss this appeal.

 Miss Bruce in submission reminds me that the appellant has been a FESCI member since 1990 and was involved in six months of intense political involvement. There is evidence of past persecution including rape. The rape took place during an orchestrated attempt by the government to disrupt the activities of the students. The appellant was not the only woman to be raped. There is no suggestion that it was simply rogue elements of the military but rather that this was an orchestrated and deliberate attack. Her husband was arrested. Months later soldiers came looking for him. He may have escaped and if so his wife, the appellant, is at greater risk as she would be known as the wife of a FESCI activist.

 Whilst at the village she moved from village to village; she was frightened when she left the Cote d'lvoire and was not particularly clear about what she was doing. It is suggested that it is not unusual that a woman who has been raped would not claim asylum on arrival as she would want to secure her place prior to making a claim. Miss Bruce urges me to find that the appellant was involved with FESCI and the FPI and she refers me to the West Africa magazine, and the African Research Bulletin at Bundle B both of which relate to 1991.

 As to future risk I am referred to the respondent's bundle. I am reminded that the Court of Appeal has remitted the case of Made (15689) and much of the evidence relied on in that was flawed. I am referred to the US State Department Report, pages 37 and 38 in particular, and to the fact that there are credible reports of female prisoners being raped. I am also referred to the last items of Bundle 3, namely the Amnesty International report and the report from the African Research Bulletin. Reference is also made to the letter from UNHCR, pages 9 to 10 of Bundle 3 relating to victims of sexual violence. The appellant has suffered past persecution as a result of political involvement. She claims to be a member of IRAG, although no evidence of this has been produced. She will be perceived to be the wife of a FESCI activist and will thus be at risk. In addition there is reference to her emotional condition. The same government is in power and its human rights record remains poor. Miss Bruce suggests that if the appellant were to be rounded up on return because of her suffering from rape trauma syndrome this would amount to persecution. In short she urges me to allow this appeal.

 It is for the appellant to demonstrate that she is entitled to asylum and to that end she must show that there is a reasonable degree of likelihood that she would be persecuted for a Convention reason were she to be returned to her own country. The standard of proof is as set out in Sivakumaran [1988] Imm AR147 and Kaja [1995] Imm AR1. The date at which I must consider the matter is at the date of hearing in line with the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Ravichandran [1996] Imm AR97.

 I accept that the appellant was a member of FESCI and was involved with that organisation at a time when there were significant problems. I accept that she was beaten and raped. She may be a member of FPI but any involvement with that party is minimal. I accept therefore that the appellant has suffered persecution at the hands of the authorities by reason of her political involvement and the only question which remains is whether she can now demonstrate that there is a reasonable degree of likelihood that she would be persecuted for a Convention reason were she to be returned. On that, the matter is somewhat more complex. Her evidence was not particularly persuasive. She is extremely vague and I do not believe that anything like the whole truth has been told by her. I believe that she has significantly exaggerated her claim. Be that as it may, the core remains intact.

 There is significant evidence before me which suggests that superficially the problems of FESCI and the FPI for that matter have been addressed. The ban on FESCI has been lifted as has the boycott on classes. That much is not disputed. The government has agreed a fresh peace deal with the students but whilst there has been a call for the government to open up the opposition, and cosmetically that has happened, it seems that there has been little real change. That is highlighted by the newspaper report submitted of October 1998 by the Secretary General of the FPI. I have no reason to doubt the contents of that article. Further the US State Department Report of 1998 makes disturbing reading. Despite the fact that there has been an improvement in the human rights record of the government, it remains poor. It is clear that members of the security forces committed extrajudicial killings and beat and abused detainees and also used force to disperse protesters. There are credible reports that female prisoners are raped whilst in custody. Despite the somewhat rosy picture painted of the situation by the respondent, I do not believe that that is entirely borne out by the documentary evidence produced.

 Given the past record of the Cote d'lvoire it seems to me to be somewhat early to say that a FESCI supporter who has been brutally raped by the authorities and whose husband may still be wanted by the authorities would not be at risk were she to be returned. Whilst there is much of this woman's evidence which I did not believe there is sufficient to my mind to demonstrate that there is a reasonable degree of likelihood based on the parts of the claim which I do accept to suggest that she would be at risk were she to be returned. It seemed to me to be reasonably likely that she would be identified either as politically active herself or as the wife of a political activist who may come to the attention of the authorities if returned. Given what has happened to her in the past, I believe that if she were rounded up again that may in itself amount to persecution as is suggested by Miss Bruce. If in the longer term the country situation improves, there is available to the Secretary of State the provisions of Article 1C (the cessation clauses) provided by the Convention when the risk in the Cote d'lvoire is over. For the moment, however, I believe that the appellant has made out her case and as empowered by Section 19 (1) of the Immigration Act 1971 I allow this appeal.

Mrs. J Davidson

SPECIAL ADJUDICATOR

20/01/99

 25 - 1 - 99

 Home