Violation of Art. 3 (applicant's expulsion to Somalia);No violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 41

The applicant submitted that he was born in DATE and is currently living in GPE .

The applicant requested asylum in the GPE for the reasons set out below .

He originally hailed from GPE and belonged to the minority PERSON population group . In DATE , due to the civil war , his family were forced to leave behind their belongings in GPE and flee to the village of PERSON , QUANTITY from GPE , where they lived in primitive conditions .

After their flight from GPE , the family were robbed of their remaining possessions . PERSON was controlled by the ORG clan of the PERSON clan - family . That clan 's armed militia knew that the applicant and his family had no means of protection because they belonged to a minority , and for that reason the family were persecuted . CARDINAL other PERSON families were living in PERSON ; they were treated in the same manner .

Members of the militia would frequently come to the family home and threaten the applicant and his family . The first time this occurred was when the applicant was DATE : the militia threatened the applicant 's father , saying that they would set the house on fire if he did not give them money . Whenever the applicant went out he would be harassed and beaten ; sometimes when he went to fetch water , the bucket would be knocked over by members of the ORG . The applicant 's mother sold fruit and vegetables on the market . She was repeatedly robbed and ill - treated . Sometimes , when her DATE takings had been stolen , the family had to go without food and drink .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's father was killed by members of the ORG militia . CARDINAL evening in DATE , on CARDINAL of the occasions when members of the militia came to the house , the family members were locked up and ill - treated – the applicant was hit with a belt and a rifle butt . His brother PERSON had his arm broken . Then the militia members took the applicant 's mother and sister as well as a female acquaintance outside with them . They left his mother , but took his sister and the acquaintance to a place outside the village where they raped them . They did not release them until TIME .

In DATE the applicant and CARDINAL of his brothers were held by members of the militia , ill - treated and forced to unload a lorry from TIME

In DATE the applicant 's brother , who ran a small grocery shop , was shot and killed in his shop by ORG militia members . The applicant heard the shots and when he went to look he saw the body of his brother lying on the floor while the militia members looted the shop . The militia knew his brother and saw him as easy prey because , being a member of a minority , he was unable to defend himself .

DATE , in DATE or DATE , ORG militia members came to the family home in a car , took the applicant 's sister away , raped her and released her late the same night . Although the applicant was at home , he was powerless to intervene because he might have been killed in the process . It was not uncommon for militia members to rape girls . The majority of girls in the village belonged to the large clans and were therefore well protected . Of the families belonging to the PERSON minority , the applicant 's was the CARDINAL with a daughter , making her an easy target .

The last time members of the militia came to the family home prior to the applicant 's flight was in DATE . CARDINAL men came in a ORG , carrying ORG and MCARDINAL rifles . The applicant was at home with CARDINAL younger brothers . He was threatened , beaten , punched and kicked . The militia searched the house looking for money . They left , saying that his mother should get money ready for them or the consequences would be dire .

On several occasions the applicant 's mother had requested the village wise men to ask the militia to stop persecuting the family , but to no avail .

The family had been wanting to leave the country for a long time , but there was not enough money . Fleeing to another place in GPE was not an option , as things might be even worse elsewhere . Finally , after lengthy negotiations conducted by the applicant 's uncle with clan elders , his mother received compensation from the people who had moved into the family home in GPE . This meant she had the financial means to pay for the applicant 's escape to the GPE .

The applicant 's flight from GPE was arranged by his mother and his uncle .

On CARDINAL DATE he went from PERSON to GPE , where he stayed in his uncle 's house for DATE while his uncle established contact with a “ travel agent ” calling himself PERSON . The applicant handed over a number of passport pictures to PERSON , which the latter used to obtain a NORP passport in the applicant 's name . PERSON then put the applicant up in a house in GPE for DATE . There the applicant met a boy by the name of Abdulkadir who was also about to flee the country . DATE , the applicant , PERSON and PERSON flew from GPE to GPE ( GPE ) in an aeroplane used to transport qat ( a plant grown in GPE , GPE and GPE ; the chewing of its leaves and twigs is popular among NORP ) . In GPE they took a taxi to a hotel . PERSON did not allow the applicant to continue the journey using the NORP passport , which he took back from him . After staying in GPE for DATE , the applicant , PERSON and Abdulkadir flew to GPE and from there to GPE . On this leg of the journey the applicant used a NORP passport in the name of CARDINAL PERSON , born in DATE , as well as an identity card in the same name . PERSON would give these documents to the applicant when they had to pass through passport controls , but would then take them back again . On arrival at FAC on DATE , PERSON told the applicant and PERSON to wait for him as he had to go somewhere in the airport . Whilst they were waiting they were approached by police , whereupon they said that they wished to request asylum .

On his arrival , the applicant indicated that he wished to apply for asylum . He was refused entry into the GPE and deprived of his liberty . He was taken to the asylum application centre ( aanmeldcentrum , “ ORG ” ) at GPE to lodge his request for asylum ( verblijfsvergunning asiel voor bepaalde tijd ) on CARDINAL DATE . A first interview with an official of ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) took place DATE in order to establish the applicant 's identity , nationality and travel route . He stated , inter alia , that he thought he had been born in DATE because he knew there was a DATE difference between himself and his brother .

A number of further questions concerning the applicant 's age were put to him on DATE . He said that as a result of an illness he had lost his hair , and this explained why he did not have much hair . He did not know his exact date of birth and estimated that he was DATE . He consented to undergo an examination to determine his age .

The DATE a lawyer acting on behalf of the applicant submitted a small number of corrections to the record drawn up of the first interview . Referring to a report from ORG , the lawyer also objected to the method used to determine the applicant 's age . He further requested that the applicant be granted , ex officio , a residence permit for stateless persons who , through no fault of their own , are unable to leave the GPE ( the so - called “ no - fault residence permit ” – “ buiten - schuld vtv ” ) .

On DATE the examination to determine the applicant 's age was conducted . According to the results of the examination , the applicant was CARDINAL . On this basis the applicant 's theoretical date of birth was given as DATE .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed about the reasons for his request for asylum . During the interview he stated , inter alia , that his mother had told him that he had been born on DATE and that he had been DATE at the start of the war in GPE . He did not agree with the attribution of a different date of birth , as he trusted his mother more than the doctor who had carried out the examination to determine his age .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE , the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie – “ the Minister ” ) had notified ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE of the measure imposed on the applicant depriving him of his liberty . According to section GPE ) of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) , the applicant was deemed to have appealed against the measure by means of this notification . On DATE ORG rejected the appeal .

On DATE the applicant was given a copy of the statement of the Minister 's intention to refuse him asylum ( voornemen ) . On DATE a lawyer acting on behalf of the applicant submitted written comments ( zienswijze ) on this intention .

By a decision of DATE the Minister refused the applicant 's asylum request . The fact that the applicant had failed to submit documents establishing his identity , nationality and travel route was held to cast doubt on the sincerity of his account and detract from its credibility . This conclusion was not altered by the fact that it had subsequently been established that the applicant had flown to the GPE from GPE , since this information had come to light without any help from the applicant .

NORP The Minister further considered that the applicant had made unreliable statements as to his date of birth and his age . Although he had submitted that he was DATE , an examination had shown that he was CARDINAL . This was also deemed seriously to affect the credibility of his account .

NORP The Minister found that , in any event , the reasons advanced by the applicant for his flight were insufficient to qualify him for refugee status . The situation in GPE for asylum seekers , whether or not they belonged to the PERSON population group , was not such that the mere fact of coming from that country was sufficient in order to be recognised as a refugee . The applicant 's account contained insufficient indications that he had made himself known as an opponent of the ( local ) rulers . He had never been a member or sympathiser of a political party or movement , nor had he ever been arrested or detained .

The applicant 's claim that he had been harassed from when he was a child by members of the ORG clan because he belonged to a minority in the area where he lived was also deemed insufficient to qualify him for refugee status . In this context the Minister held that the problems experienced by the applicant had not come about as the result of systematic , major acts of discrimination which rendered his life unbearable . Rather , these problems should be seen as a consequence of a generally unstable situation in which criminal gangs frequently , but arbitrarily , intimidated and threatened people .

The applicant 's claims that he had been held for DATE in DATE and had been forced to perform hard labour , and that he had several times been threatened with death by members of the ORG , were also deemed insufficient . The Minister considered that the applicant 's situation could not have been desperate , given that he had stayed in the area where he was living despite having been the victim of extortion . This conclusion was not altered by the applicant 's claim that he had wanted to leave sooner but had lacked the money .

NORP The Minister concluded that there had not appeared to be a real risk of the applicant 's being subjected to treatment in breach of LAW on his return to GPE . Moreover , the applicant was not eligible for a residence permit under the policy of leniency towards asylum seekers who had undergone trauma ( traumatabeleid ) , given that the alleged murder of his brother had occurred as far back as DATE and the alleged rape of his sister as far back as DATE and DATE .

According to the Minister the return of the applicant to GPE , given the general situation there , did not amount to an unduly harsh measure since , in order to avoid any future problems , he could settle in CARDINAL of GPE 's relatively safe areas . The applicant had only heard , but had no proof , that he would experience the same problems there because he belonged to a minority . There was no reason to conclude that a general humanitarian emergency pertained in those areas . Whether or not the applicant had family or clan ties in the relatively safe areas , or whether or not he had ever been there before , was of no significance in this context .

The Minister found that the applicant was not stateless since he held NORP nationality . Therefore , the applicant was not eligible for a “ no - fault residence permit ” . Finally , the Minister extended the measure depriving the applicant of his liberty .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the rejection of his request for asylum . He argued , inter alia , that a controversial method had been used to determine whether or not he was a minor , that the Minister had ignored the fact that his horrific experiences had their roots in a form of ethnic exclusion and exploitation and that no internal flight alternative existed within GPE . DATE he also filed an objection ( bezwaar ) against the refusal to grant him a “ no - fault residence permit ” for stateless persons . The appeals against the deprivation of his liberty which he was deemed to have lodged by means of a ministerial notification were rejected by ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE , by decisions of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE .

On DATE the Minister rejected the applicant 's objection against the refusal to grant him a “ no - fault residence permit ” for stateless persons . She maintained that the applicant was not stateless ; although there was no effective government in GPE at the present time , the possibility existed that one would be established in the future . Moreover , the international community did not doubt the existence of GPE .

Following a hearing on DATE ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the rejection of his request for asylum on DATE . ORG did not agree with the Minister that the applicant 's account was rendered implausible as a result of the incorrect date of birth ; according to ORG , the applicant had merely stated what he had been told by his mother . However , for the remainder , ORG considered that the Minister 's view that the applicant 's situation as he described it was insufficiently serious to qualify him for refugee status was wellfounded . ORG agreed with the Minister that the problems experienced by the applicant had come about not so much as the consequence of a targeting of the applicant personally ; rather , the events were to be seen as a result of the generally unstable ( security ) situation in GPE , where intimidation and insults by criminal groups regularly and arbitrarily occurred . In this context ORG attached relevance to the fact that the applicant could have removed himself from the situation pertaining in his immediate environment by moving to the “ relatively safe areas ” of GPE , as appeared from , inter alia , the country reports ( ambtsberichten ) drawn up by the Minister of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In view of the foregoing , ORG further held that the Minister had been correct in finding that the applicant had failed to substantiate his claim that he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of LAW if he were expelled to his country of origin . Finally , ORG , referring to a judgment of ORG of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , considered that the Minister could reasonably have taken the view that the applicant 's return to GPE did not constitute an exceptionally harsh measure in the context of the overall situation there , having regard to the fact that rejected asylum seekers belonging to minority groups could remove themselves from any problems they might experience by staying in the “ relatively safe areas ” of GPE .

The applicant did not lodge a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) against the dismissal of his appeal , his lawyer advising him that , in view of that body 's established caselaw concerning the availability of an alternative place of abode in GPE , such further appeal would stand no chance of success .

Having been informed that he was to be issued with ORG ( “ ORG ” ) travel document and deported to the “ relatively safe areas ” of GPE , via GPE , on DATE , the applicant lodged an objection with the Minister on DATE on the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . He further requested ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE to issue a provisional measure to the effect that he would not be deported pending the appeal . The applicant argued that there were too many incongruities surrounding his deportation as planned : not only was the legal basis of the ORG travel document unclear , it was also not known whether the authorities in GPE and the NORP province of PERSON allowed persons travelling on such documents entry to their territory . In addition , the applicant , as a member of a minority unable to obtain protection from CARDINAL of the ruling clans , would be forced to live in a camp for internally displaced persons ( “ IDPs ” ) in the “ relatively safe areas ” , where the conditions were so appalling that they had been described by ORG on ORG as a clear violation of human rights . This expert had also noted that the most pressing issue of concern in GPE was discrimination against minorities who had no government or armed protection and were therefore vulnerable to sporadic rape and looting .

The provisional measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE rejected the applicant 's request for a provisional measure on DATE . The judge held that deportation with an ORG travel document would be unlawful only if there were indications that entry to a territory would be denied to persons travelling with such a document . No such indications existed . Moreover , the airline company transporting rejected asylum seekers from GPE to GPE had undertaken to return the persons concerned should they be denied entry to GPE . The fact that an expulsion via GPE entailed a short stop at an airport in GPE was insufficient to conclude that there would be a risk of treatment in breach of LAW . Finally , ORG considered that the recent tensions between GPE and GPE did not render the expulsion unlawful , given that the applicant would be expelled to the province of PERSON .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant introduced the present application . He also requested ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG to indicate to the Government not to expel him pending the proceedings before the ORG . That same day , the President of the ORG decided to indicate to the Government that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to expel the applicant . Thereupon , the GPE decided not to proceed with the applicant 's expulsion . The applicant was also released .

DATE . On DATE the Minister dismissed the applicant 's objection against the decision to expel him . His appeal to ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE was declared inadmissible on DATE . ORG held that the applicant no longer had an interest in a determination of the merits of his objection in view of the fact that its aim , a halt to the expulsion , had been achieved since , following the interim measure indicated by ORG , it had been decided not to proceed with his expulsion . This decision was upheld by ORG of ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Government informed the ORG that the applicant was eligible for a residence permit on the basis of a temporary “ policy of protection for certain categories ” ( categoriaal beschermingsbeleid , see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) adopted by the Minister on DATE in respect of asylum seekers coming from certain parts of GPE . Pursuant to this information , the applicant lodged a fresh application for asylum on DATE . The application was granted on DATE .

As of DATE the admission , residence and expulsion of aliens have been regulated by LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet CARDINAL ) , LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit DATE ) , the Regulation on Aliens CARDINAL ( ORG DATE ) and LAW CARDINAL ( Vreemdelingencirculaire DATE ) . LAW ( PERSON ) is also applicable , except where otherwise stipulated .

On the basis of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , in force at the relevant time , a residence permit for the purposes of asylum may be issued to an alien :

( a ) who is a refugee within the meaning of the LAW relating to LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) ;

( b ) who makes a plausible case that he or she has well - founded reasons for believing that , if expelled , he or she will run a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment ;

( c ) who can not , in the opinion of the Minister , for compelling reasons of a humanitarian nature connected with the reasons for his or her departure from the country of origin , reasonably be expected to return to that country ; or

( d ) for whom return to the country of origin would , in the opinion of the Minister , constitute an exceptionally harsh measure within the context of the overall situation there .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) the Minister may pursue a policy of protection for a particular category of asylum seekers . Section CARDINAL of LAW specifies the indicators that are used to assess whether such a policy would be justified . In brief , they are the nature , degree and geographic spread of the violence in the country of origin , the activities of international organisations ( in so far as they bear strongly on the position of the international community with regard to the situation in the country of origin ) and the policies of other Member GPE of ORG . Protection for certain categories is based on considerations related not to specific persons but to the overall situation or patterns of violence in the country of origin . The criterion of exceptional harshness , laid down in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) , is not a formal one , such as the declaration of a state of siege , a state of war or the existence of some form of armed conflict , but a material one . It relates to whether the risks that could arise on a person 's return , in connection , inter alia , with armed conflict or the like would be unreasonable from a humanitarian perspective or from the perspective of the law of armed conflict . In general , protection for certain categories is justified only if armed conflict ( including armed civil conflict ) has disrupted DATE life to such an extent that such humanitarian risks arise .

An asylum seeker whose application for asylum has been rejected may appeal against that decision to ORG of GPE . Further appeal from ORG judgment lies to ORG of ORG .

Section CARDINAL of LAW stipulates that a decision rejecting an asylum application automatically has the following consequences : the alien is no longer legally resident in the GPE , his or her access to services for asylum seekers is terminated and he or she is required to leave the GPE within a fixed time - limit , failing which the competent authorities are authorised to expel the person concerned . A separate removal order is therefore not required . However , section CARDINAL ) of LAW stipulates , in relation to means of redress , that acts taken in respect of an alien – including expulsion – are to be equated with a decision ( beschikking ) within the meaning of LAW . As a result , the remedies provided for in that LAW objection and appeal – may be employed in respect of the manner in which an expulsion is to be carried out or if the situation at the time of expulsion differs from that at the time of the final rejection of the asylum application in such a way that it can no longer be said that the lawfulness of the expulsion has already been established .

As a rule , the GPE authorities do not monitor asylum seekers after expulsion , since it is held that this is not appropriate in the context of a conscientious asylum procedure and would undermine the credibility of the decisions emerging from that procedure . It is argued that if an application for asylum has been rejected and the courts have determined that this decision was correct , there is no reason to suppose that on returning to the country of origin , the asylum seeker in question will face persecution or a breach of LAW . If the latter were the case , he or she would have been granted a residence permit for the purposes of asylum pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The respondent ORG 's policy on NORP asylum seekers has been devised by the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) and , since DATE , by his successor , the Minister of ORG , on the basis of country reports published by the Minister of ORG , who in DATE published the first such report on the general situation in GPE .

The country report issued in DATE indicated that in the “ relatively safe ” areas the need for protection by one 's own clan was declining as the effectiveness with which the regional authorities maintained security was increasing . Although this did not mean that the clan no longer played a role in NORP society , protection by one 's own clan or family was no longer considered necessary in the “ relatively safe ” areas , where the local and regional authorities were generally able to maintain peace and security and to offer an inclusive , neutral form of protection . As a result , the policy pursued as of DATE no longer included the principle of clan protection on a person 's return .

While the country report dated DATE found that the position of minorities in the “ conflict ” area continued to be bad , it nevertheless stated that despite this lack of security , it was not the case that all persons belonging to a minority had to fear ( person - specific ) persecution for the sole reason that they belonged to that minority . As the DATE report further found a continuation of the trend towards a diminishing need for clan ( or family ) protection in the “ relatively safe ” areas , the then Deputy Minister of ORG abolished on DATE the policy of protection for certain categories of NORP ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , which until then had still been applied to members of CARDINAL particular clan families . Even though the situation in the “ conflict ” and “ transitional ” areas of the country could support the conclusion that such a policy continued to be called for , the government took the view that an alternative place of abode for all failed NORP asylum seekers , including minorities , was available in the “ relatively safe ” areas . In addition , asylum seekers in respect of whom it had been determined that they had a well - founded fear of persecution or that they ran a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of LAW were not eligible for a residence permit for the purpose of asylum if it was established that they could remove themselves from the perceived threat of persecution or real risk by settling elsewhere within the country of origin .

According to the country report issued in DATE , GPE could be divided into the following areas , in terms of the risk for noncombatants of falling victim to conflict - related violence or political violence :

- the “ conflict ” area in southern GPE , consisting of GPE , ORG , the environs of those cities and the provinces of GPE and ORG ;

- the “ transitional ” area in southern GPE , consisting of the provinces of GPE and GPE and PERSON ( in so far as they were not part of the conflict area ) , PERSON and the north - western part of the province of GPE ;

- the “ relatively safe ” part of GPE , consisting of the northern provinces of ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Sool , PERSON , GPE and the north of PERSON ( together making up the self - declared State of NORP in the north - west and the self - declared autonomous region of GPE in the north - east ) , the south of PERSON , the central provinces of GPE and PERSON ( in so far as they were not in the “ transitional ” area ) and the islands off the coast of southern GPE .

The DATE country report emphasised once more that clan protection was not necessary and that the security situation was not so bad that all members of a given minority were justified in fearing personspecific persecution due to their minority status , even if it was the case that minorities and the clanless were more likely to fall victim to intimidation and abuse by armed militia members .

In DATE officials from ORG paid a DATE working visit to the city of GPE in GPE . The DATE country report was partly based on the findings of this mission .

Since there was no clear difference in the number of armed clashes between the “ conflict ” areas and the “ transitional ” areas as referred to in the DATE country report , the DATE report divided GPE into CARDINAL regions , namely a “ relatively safe ” and a “ relatively unsafe ” region . On the basis of the risk run by the civilian population of falling victim to acts of violence , the CARDINAL regions were defined as follows :

- the “ relatively unsafe ” region : GPE and ORG and the area around those towns , the provinces of Bay , Baykool , Lower and GPE , PERSON and PERSON , GPE , PERSON and PERSON ;

- the “ relatively safe ” region : the provinces making up NORP and GPE , the south of PERSON and the islands off the coast of southern GPE .

As previous reports had done , the report of DATE further elaborated on the existence of clans and minority groups in GPE : besides the dominant NORP nomadic culture , there are various groups with differing cultures , such as farming NORP clan families and non - ethnic NORP minority groups . The farming clan families are regarded as less “ noble ” by the nomadic clan families and the status of the minority groups , who are estimated to account for PERCENT of the population , is even lower . The minorities either lack a clan structure or have a clan structure which is much less pronounced than that of the nomadic clan families . Traditionally , these minority groups have not been covered by NORP clan law and have therefore received no protection unless a clan has agreed to protect them . In general , the minority groups suffered greatly from the armed conflicts , since they were unarmed and often had some financial resources derived from their occupations . They were easy targets for robbery , looting and murder by militias . Many members of the minority groups in the south fled in the course of the civil war , particularly to GPE and western countries , but also to NORP and GPE .

According to the country report , it was not known exactly how many minority groups existed in GPE . CARDINAL of the main minority groups is the PERSON ( or PERSON ) whose ancestors are people of NORP , NORP , NORP and NORP origin who settled in some of the coastal towns of GPE from DATE and mixed to varying degrees with the original population and subsequent newcomers . Each PERSON group can trace its origin back to a single forefather ; PERSON often refer to these descent groups as clans . The PERSON , consisting of CARDINAL groups traditionally regarded as descendants of the CARDINAL grandchildren of the Prophet PERSON , is CARDINAL of these PERSON groups .

The DATE country report described the position of minority groups in the “ relatively unsafe ” regions as bad . Members of these groups were much more likely to be victims of intimidation and assault by armed members of the militias . Notwithstanding this lack of safety , not all people belonging to a given minority group had cause to fear individual persecution simply on account of their membership of the minority , nor was the situation the same for all minority groups . As the PERSON did not have a special relationship with CARDINAL or more of the NORP clan families , they could not count on clan protection . Since the outbreak of the civil war , the PERSON had tended to be the first victims of robbery and looting owing to their relatively isolated social position and presumed wealth . As a consequence of these problems , a large proportion of the PERSON had fled abroad . Those who remained had often lost some or all of their possessions . Although the scale of violence had greatly decreased , they were still in a vulnerable position since they were living in the “ relatively unsafe ” regions . They were virtually absent from the “ relatively safe ” areas and their numbers there were too small for general statements to be made about them .

Since the civil war , the populations of towns and cities in the “ relatively safe ” areas had skyrocketed , partly owing to an influx of displaced persons from the south and partly owing to migration from rural to urban areas . Many displaced persons had managed to settle in their new areas on a lasting basis . Almost all of them had ties with the inhabitants of the area , for example because they were members of the same clan family or because a relative came from there . A social safety net might also be provided by other ties , for instance with old school friends , neighbours or business partners . Displaced persons without such ties almost invariably ended up in miserable settlements for the internally displaced , with no real chance of proper integration .

There were still some CARDINAL people living in settlements for displaced persons in GPE , of whom CARDINAL were living in the town of GPE . The majority of these people originated from southern GPE and also comprised members of the PERSON and NORP minorities . The camp - dwellers perceived poor accommodation and lack of affordable sanitation as the most serious problems . They were living in huts built from discarded materials which did not provide adequate protection against GPE 's harsh climate . There was also a serious risk of fire , as the high winds could easily cause cooking fires to get out of control . Another problem was security in the camps : theft and occasional crimes of violence . Whenever an incident was reported to the police , there was an investigation and increased patrolling for DATE , but in most cases the police were unable to catch the culprits . However , camp - dwellers said this was not because of discrimination .

In GPE , displaced persons were also living in miserable huts that they had built for themselves from discarded materials . In DATE the Somaliland Government decreed that all displaced persons who were not originally from NORP must leave the country . Although no one was actually deported , it was made abundantly clear to displaced persons from southern GPE that they were no longer welcome . Most of them had moved to GPE or GPE .

No reports of violent incidents on the islands off the coast of southern GPE had been received in the period under review . Since DATE , members of the ORG clan have had control of these islands , which are also inhabited by members of the ORG minority who are employed in the fishing industry by members of the aforementioned clan .

According to the DATE report , the rate of crime in the “ relatively safe ” areas was low , certainly compared with other countries in LOC . In general , the local and regional administrative authorities were able to maintain law and order , if necessary with the help of the police . In NORP society , law enforcement had always been primarily the preserve of clan elders , village elders , imams and other community leaders . This traditional form of law enforcement was , by its very nature , much less effective if the victim was a member of a minority group or of a small , poorly armed clan . As a result , displaced persons and unarmed minorities were an easy target for criminals . The police force of a given city contained members of all the clans who lived there , as well as a few members of minority groups and a small number of women . Although the police discriminated against minority groups and displaced persons , they seldom refused categorically to act . Where a displaced person or member of a minority group was a victim of crime , the police would generally take adequate ( or reasonably adequate ) action , even though it was likely that they would be less inclined to do their best for a displaced person than for local inhabitants belonging to the clans . However , if there was a dispute with a clan member , there was a real likelihood that the police would take the side of that clan member . In such cases there were indications that police officers might even commit crimes against displaced persons or members of minority groups .

NORP The country report concluded that in general , displaced persons in the “ relatively safe ” parts of GPE could be said to have a marginal , isolated position in society . This made them vulnerable , and they were victims of crime to a greater than average extent . Their vulnerability partly depended on what resources they possessed ( money , skills , and so forth ) , but in general their socio - economic position was significantly worse than that of the local population . They were not persecuted by the local authorities . There was some discrimination by local people , but in GPE or GPE at least no serious incidents were known to have occurred . However , people were not ready to accept the idea of displaced persons who had no ties whatsoever with their clan becoming genuinely integrated into their community .

NORP could enter and leave the country overland without restriction , in keeping with ancient nomadic tradition . There were several flights a week to a number of destinations in GPE from the surrounding countries and GPE . Persons entering GPE via PERSON airport had their travel documents checked . The other airports in GPE operated under the authority of local warlords , who ran them as private businesses . Passengers were not asked to produce travel documents at any of these latter airports .

Since the collapse of GPE 's central government in DATE there had been no internationally recognised body that issued or extended NORP passports . Travel documents that passed for NORP passports could be bought at markets in GPE and in neighbouring countries . Officially , NORP passports were not internationally recognised as travel documents , but in practice they were accepted by the countries of ORG , GPE 's neighbouring countries and LOC , since there was no alternative travel document for NORP to use . Nor were NORP passports officially recognised as proof of identity .

NORP returning to GPE met with no hindrance from the local authorities on arrival . However , in the “ relatively unsafe ” areas , passengers were sometimes waylaid en route from the airport by militias or criminals who stole all their belongings , often resorting to extreme violence . As a result of the decree of DATE , NORP without ties with NORP were not normally allowed to live in that entity . There were no formal residence restrictions in the remainder of GPE . Organised return ( voluntary or otherwise ) to NORP and GPE required the consent of the local authorities . In DATE ORG had helped many CARDINAL of NORP return to GPE , especially to the north . However , the authorities in GPE and GPE had pointed out that there was only limited scope for providing those who returned with work and facilities .

Following the issuance of this country report , the applicant requested the Minister of ORG to provide him with documents relating to the working visit of the Ministry delegation to PERSON in DATE . In response , the Minister made public the written report on interviews conducted by the delegation with QUANTITY individuals . A number of passages relating to the identity of and background information on the interviewees had been deleted for reasons which were permitted under section ORG ) of ORG ( Wet openbaarheid van bestuur ) as grounds for withholding information ( for example the protection of sources or of the private life of third persons ) . Administrative proceedings instituted by the applicant aimed at obtaining a complete version of the report were unsuccessful .

The written report on the interviews consists of summaries of the information and replies received by the delegation in the course of the interviews , some of which were held in CARDINAL camps for IDPs . The identities of those interviewed and/or organisations for which they worked have been deleted , and the questions that were put to them are not included in the report .

DATE . Below are some quotes from the report .

- “ Banditry and crime in a general sense are much less prevalent in GPE than in GPE ... In the whole of GPE hardly any fighting is taking place . ”

- “ In the villages the councils of elders have a firm grip on the situation . Accordingly , it is very safe there . In the cities things are different in this respect . ”

- “ No serious confrontations took place in GPE in DATE . There were a number of small - scale conflicts over ownership of land or between families . ”

- “ The police actually undertake action if their assistance is sought and are generally efficient . The police are composed of different clans and are capable of acting independently . ”

- “ If a minority such as the NORP go to the police , the police will in general not do very much . This is mainly because there is not a great deal that the police can do ; they prefer the settlement of disputes through the old clan traditions . As a result it is more difficult for minorities without a clan ... to obtain justice . ”

- In one of the camps for IDPs visited by the delegation , there were QUANTITY persons who “ had come from GPE following the decree of DATE . Most of them had been forced to leave and had not even been given the opportunity to collect their belongings . ”

- “ There are a total of around CARDINAL camps for IDPs in or near GPE . Each camp has a different ethnic composition , and persons belonging to the same clan / minority look out for each other . ”

- “ In GPE ... there are no PERSON ... , except for those who are on their way to GPE ( which is a regular occurrence ) . ”

- “ PERSON are virtually absent from the north of GPE ( in GPE there are at most CARDINAL ) . ”

- “ Ultimately the clan system will continue to control politics . People nevertheless feel a certain connection to GPE as an entity ; they are proud of the stability in GPE and consider themselves less primitive than the southerners . ”

- “ New IDPs arriving in GPE usually have existing ties with family members or acquaintances already living in GPE , who take care of their immediate needs . ... IDPs who come to GPE without having any ties there experience considerably more difficulties . Such IDPs generally turn to the mosque for help . In practice they manage in the end to join other IDPs . ”

- “ IDPs are not discriminated against . IDPs and minorities have their committees and such like to protect their interests . ”

- “ The human rights situation in GPE has worsened in DATE , especially for IDPs and minorities . ”

- “ There is no question of genuine integration of IDPs ; they continue to be an isolated group , even after DATE . They do not form part of the community and do not own land . Although this is officially permitted , it is in practice not allowed . In short , the position of IDPs is a marginalised one . ”

A new country report was issued in DATE . This report was virtually the same as its predecessor , except for the following elements .

NORP The report divided GPE into CARDINAL areas : a “ relatively unsafe ” area , a “ relatively safe ” area , and a “ transitional ” area consisting of the northern provinces of NORP and PERSON , to which both PERSON and GPE lay claim . The “ relatively safe ” area was the same as in the DATE country report , except that the south of the province of PERSON was now considered “ relatively unsafe ” .

It was reiterated in the DATE report that no actual deportations from GPE had taken place . However , CARDINAL of displaced persons residing in GPE were living in constant fear . The country report further referred to statements from ORG , according to which the situation of displaced persons in GPE had worsened and they were subjected to exploitation , extortion and harassment .

NORP The country report further stated that the ORG had carried out a largescale study amongst IDPs in GPE in DATE , in the course of which PERCENT of displaced persons said they felt safe in their settlements . A footnote stated that on the basis of this report ORG DATE co - author of the report together with ORG for ORG – had come to a different conclusion : “ Their small huts made of cloth with often no proper door offer no protection against assaults by men stealing belongings and raping women at gunpoint with impunity . ”

The fact that travel documents were checked when entering NORP via PERSON airport had not changed . The DATE report added that no reports had been received of non - Somalilanders having been refused entry . The report further added that travel documents were also checked at GPE airport in GPE .

The DATE report further specified that organised returns ( voluntary or otherwise ) to NORP and GPE required the consent of the local authorities if they concerned the return of a group of persons .

DATE and DATE , CARDINAL NORP returned voluntarily to GPE from the GPE . CARDINAL of them chose to go to GPE , CARDINAL to other destinations in the south , CARDINAL ( NORP ) and one to PERSON ( GPE ) . Only one had a NORP travel document ; the others travelled using an ORG travel document .

DATE . The most recent country report dates from DATE . According to this report , the “ relatively safe ” areas were practically the same as those described in the DATE report ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , except that the provinces of NORP and PERSON were once again “ relatively safe ” , while the south of the province of PERSON continued to be “ relatively unsafe ” . Moreover , the whole of the town of PERSON was now considered to belong to the “ relatively unsafe ” areas .

It was reiterated in the DATE report that in the “ relatively safe ” areas , minorities and displaced persons were victims of crime more often than the average . However , these persons ' chances of falling victim to crime were considerably higher in the “ relatively unsafe ” regions . Minorities were further said to constitute a disproportionately large part of the prison population in the “ relatively unsafe ” regions .

It continued to be the case that NORP without ties to NORP could not in principle obtain a right to reside there , although no forced expulsions had taken place . As regards GPE , no reports had been received of problems experienced by NORP who hailed from elsewhere in staying there .

In DATE nine NORP voluntarily returned from the GPE ; CARDINAL to GPE , one to PERSON and one to PERSON .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the NORP Minister of ORG , Médecins sans PERSON ( “ MSF ” ) wrote that the situation in the relatively safe areas as described in the country report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) did not correspond to that organisation 's experiences in GPE . MSF supported CARDINAL hospitals in the GPE town of GPE . It was necessary to support CARDINAL hospitals in the same town because GPE was split into CARDINAL by a “ GPE ” dividing CARDINAL warring clans .

According to ORG , the security situation in GPE had not improved in the course of DATE and was not compatible with a policy of forced returns . Members of both clans and minorities were victims of violence against which the authorities were unwilling or unable to offer protection . There was also widespread banditry . A generation of former child soldiers who had grown up in an environment where weapons were the only law and the strongest ruled were now the elders and warlords . This had led to the demise of rules and traditional customs in favour of chaos and brutality , with civilians being systematically targeted .

In an analysis of the DATE country report , ORG ( PERSON GPE ) pointed , inter alia , to a statement made by a person interviewed by the delegation of ORG during its working visit to PERSON ( see paragraph DATE above ) . Although the country report stated that no one had actually been deported from GPE , this person had told the delegation that many people had been forced to leave PERSON and that “ they had not even been given time to pack their clothes . ” ORG also referred to a report from the ORG Secretary General to ORG of DATE , which stated as follows :

“ ... the environment for ' foreigners ' in general and IDPs from southern GPE in particular has continued to deteriorate in GPE . Harassment , exploitation and extortion of these groups is quite common . These conditions have forced many of those affected to flee to GPE , where they are living in squalid conditions . ”

In addition , according to ORG , there were many signs that forced deportees or rejected asylum seekers were not welcome in GPE . On DATE the NORP Minister of Resettlement , Rehabilitation and Reintegration had written a letter to the NORP Minister of ORG saying that his Government did not accept forced deportees or rejected asylum seekers . ORG had also warned all airlines flying via GPE to stop transporting forced deportees to any airport in GPE .

ORG disputed the claim that police protection was available and effective in GPE , since effective law - enforcement mechanisms were absent and the authorities of NORP and GPE were themselves sometimes the source of human rights violations .

Whereas the country report had suggested that the fact that some of the camps in GPE burned down was due to a combination of inflammable materials used to build huts and high temperatures , ORG pointed to a number of reports which suggested that CARDINAL camps had been set on fire , killing people and leaving CARDINAL of people homeless . ORG reported that the situation of IDPs in GPE seemed to be going from bad to worse . They quoted Mr Jan Egeland , ORG Under - Secretary - ORG and Emergency Relief Coordinator , as saying , after a visit to a settlement for returning refugees : “ This is CARDINAL of the most forgotten places in the world . GPE is privileged compared to this . ”

The NORP section of ORG commented on the DATE country report in a letter of DATE to the lawyer of the applicant in the present case . They stated that displaced persons and members of minorities and low - status clans were in constant danger of becoming victims of violence . According to ORG 's information , the need for clan protection was still very strong , and those lacking it ran substantial risks .

In a judgment of DATE ( ORG ( Immigration Law Reports – “ JV ” ) CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG ruled that it did not appear from the country reports that such serious , widespread and structural infringements of the security situation were occurring in the “ relatively safe ” areas of GPE as to prompt the conclusion that the Minister could not reasonably have considered that the relatively safe situation there was durable and that the areas provided an alternative place of abode . While it was true that certain regions of the “ relatively safe ” areas were temporarily not accessible via the country 's external borders , there was no reason to believe that the Minister could not reasonably have reached the conclusion , as far as minority groups were concerned , that a return to the “ relatively safe ” areas of GPE would not constitute an exceptionally harsh measure in the context of the overall situation there .

Following the above - mentioned decision , ORG consistently dismissed appeals lodged by failed NORP asylum seekers claiming that they could not settle in the “ relatively safe ” areas . On DATE , however , the ORG held that a particular interim measure indicated by the President of ORG stood in the way of the expulsion to northern GPE of NORP nationals belonging to a minority and who did not have family or clan ties in northern GPE ( JV CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Following this decision , the Minister on DATE adopted a moratorium on expulsions ( vertrekmoratorium ) for NORP belonging to this group . On DATE the scope of this moratorium was extended to all NORP who did not hail from the “ relatively safe ” areas , pursuant to a decision of ORG of DATE ( JV CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , in which account was taken of the interim measure indicated by ORG in an application concerning a NORP national belonging to a clan whose members constituted a majority in GPE .

Since , according to national law , the duration of a moratorium on expulsions could not exceed DATE , and in view of the interim measures indicated by ORG and the interpretation of those measures by ORG , the Minister on DATE adopted a policy of protection for certain categories ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . In this context the Minister had regard not just to the actions of ORG but also to the nature and geographical spread of the violence in parts of GPE , as described in the country report of DATE . Provided that no contra - indications exist ( in the form of criminal convictions , for instance ) , the policy applies to NORP asylum seekers who do not originate from NORP or GPE ( apart from NORP and PERSON provinces ) and who have not spent DATE in GPE or GPE , unless that stay took place in a camp for IDPs . It also applies to NORP originating from the islands off the coast of southern GPE . Even though those islands are considered to be “ relatively safe ” they can only be reached via “ relatively unsafe ” territory .

No time - limit has been set for the duration of the policy ; it will be reviewed when ORG reaches a decision on the merits in the cases in which an interim measure has been indicated .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( JV CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ORG had regard to the information contained in the country report of DATE , according to which persons did not have to fear ( person - specific ) persecution merely because they belonged to a minority . In the light of that information ORG found that the Deputy Minister of ORG had correctly considered that the problems which the alien concerned had allegedly suffered as a result of the fact that he belonged to the Reer Hamar DATE namely slave labour , ill - treatment and intimidation – had come about as a consequence not of the specific targeting of the alien personally , but of the general situation in the country of origin at that time .

In a case concerning an NORP national , and with reference to this ORG 's judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , ORG held in a decision of DATE ( JV CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) that , even if an alien was to be expelled to a country where organised , large - scale human rights violations were committed against a group to which that alien belonged , he or she would have to make out a convincing case that specific facts and circumstances existed relating to him or her personally , in order to be eligible for the protection offered by LAW . This passage has since become a standard feature of decisions of ORG relating to LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the complaint under LAW raised in a further appeal lodged by a NORP national who claimed that she belonged to the PERSON and had been subjected to ill - treatment including rape ( JV CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . ORG considered that the alleged events demonstrated neither that the acts committed had been specifically aimed at the appellant personally , nor that she thereby found herself in a position which substantially deviated from that of other members of the PERSON in GPE .

On DATE the Minister of Resettlement , Rehabilitation and Reintegration of the self - proclaimed Republic of NORP wrote to ORG and ORG , informing them of his ORG 's policy on the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers . He stated that the Government of NORP would not accept the resettlement , voluntary or otherwise , in NORP of nationals of GPE . They did , in principle , accept the voluntary return of NORP nationals . However , such voluntary return operations were only to take place within the context of a bilateral relationship between ORG and the host Government , in accordance with specific agreements and relevant provisions of international law , and the return of rejected asylum seekers in the absence of such agreements would be considered unacceptable and illegal . The only persons eligible for resettlement were PERSON ( whose nationality was to be verified by the ORG beforehand ) who had not been abroad for DATE and who were travelling on a NORP passport . The NORP authorities did not accept the ORG travel document or other documents .

NORP In reply to questions from a member of ORG , the NORP Minister of ORG stated on DATE that the letter from the NORP Minister of Resettlement , Rehabilitation and Reintegration did not give cause for a moratorium on expulsions . As PERSON was not the only “ relatively safe ” area of GPE , rejected NORP asylum seekers still had the possibility of returning to the other “ relatively safe ” areas , which included GPE ( Records of ORG – Handelingen Tweede Kamer DATE , no . CARDINAL , ORG , pp . DATE ) . The Minister added that the GPE attached great importance to successful cooperation in respect of the return of illegal migrants , and that he would inform ORG of the outcome of any consultations should these prove possible .

The President of the Puntland State of GPE addressed a letter to the GPE Minister of ORG on DATE , expressing his deep concern about the forceful removal of NORP asylum seekers by the NORP authorities in the absence of any meaningful negotiations with the existing NORP authorities . He stated that his authorities were “ disappointed by the actions of ORG to dump ... refugees ... forcefully [ into ] the Puntland State of GPE regardless of which part of GPE they originally came from without seeking either the acceptance or prior approval [ of ] our Administration ” . The President further wrote that ORG did not accept the ORG travel document .

The GPE Minister of ORG transmitted this letter to the President of ORG of ORG on DATE ( Parliamentary Paper – Kamerstuk – DATE , CARDINAL CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . In a covering letter , she stressed that she attached great importance to close cooperation with the ( de facto ) NORP authorities and was open to possibilities for cooperation with them . She further noted that it did not appear from the letter that the GPE authorities objected to the voluntary return of NORP rejected asylum seekers , regardless of their ethnic origin or area of origin . As far as forced returns were concerned , the Minister stated that the “ relatively safe ” area of GPE consisted of more than GPE alone . There was , therefore , still the possibility of effecting the forced returns of NORP to the “ relatively safe ” area of GPE . The Minister remarked that she considered the use of the term “ dumping ” in the letter of the President of GPE misplaced . In this context she explained that NORP who were being removed were given the opportunity in a country of transit to indicate to which part of GPE they would prefer to return . The number of NORP who had so far been removed to GPE was small .

In a letter of DATE to the NORP Minister of ORG , the NORP Minister of Resettlement , Rehabilitation and Reintegration stated that as a matter of policy it was impermissible for any forced deportee or rejected asylum seeker to enter NORP territory . His Government having become aware of CARDINAL memoranda of understanding concluded by ORG of the GPE with ORG and ORG respectively , the NORP authorities had warned all airlines flying via FAC to stop transporting forced deportees to any airport in GPE . The Minister added that his Government were ready to discuss “ how to solve the problem of rejected asylum seekers ” .

The ORG travel document is based on a Recommendation adopted on DATE by ORG and ORG of ORG ( Official Journal of ORG CARDINAL ) . Acknowledging , inter alia , that the great majority of Member GPE were experiencing difficulties in dealing with cases of thirdcountry nationals who were required to be expelled from their territory but were not in possession of travel documents , the ORG recommended that a standard travel document valid for a single journey be used as appropriate by all Member GPE when effecting such expulsions .

NORP Since DATE the GPE has made use of the standard GPE travel document as a replacement document in the event of expulsions to a number of countries . It can be used for the return of aliens to their country of origin , as well as for their return to another country to which they are guaranteed admission . It is issued by ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) on behalf of ORG .

In legal literature , as well as in ORG of ORG and before the national courts , it has been argued that the ORG travel document as used by the GPE is not a lawfully issued document , since the abovementioned ORG has not been incorporated into NORP law and since no authority on the part of ORG to issue travel documents could be derived from LAW ( PERSON ) . In reply to questions put by members of ORG , the Minister of ORG denied that the ORG travel document lacked a legal basis , and stated that it had not appeared that any of the NORP aliens who had returned , either voluntarily or involuntarily , to GPE in DATE and DATE some of whom had travelled on an ORG travel document DATE had been refused entry to the country . She added that if an alien travelling on an ORG travel document was nevertheless denied admission to his or her country of origin , the provisions concerning inadmissibles and deportees contained in LAW to ORG applied , on the basis of which the GPE would allow such aliens to return to GPE of ORG , DATE , no . CARDINAL , GPE , pp . DATE ) .

In the above - mentioned covering letter to the President of ORG of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the Minister wrote , on the subject of the stated non - acceptance by the GPE authorities of the GPE travel document , that the latter could be used to facilitate the return journey , be it voluntary or involuntary , of NORP aliens who were not , or were no longer , in possession of a NORP passport . In this context the ORG travel document was intended to serve as a travel document rather than a document for crossing borders . Whether or not entry to GPE was granted depended on whether the person concerned was of NORP origin and/or if he or she was considered as such by the ( de facto ) authorities .

In the decision of CARDINAL DATE cited above ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG held as follows in response to the appellant 's claim that the use of the ORG travel document was unlawful :

“ The authority to issue this ORG travel document is based , according to information submitted by the Minister [ of ORG ] , on ORG of DATE . It has become clear that this ORG has not been incorporated into NORP law . The fact that no legal basis exists for the issuing of an ORG travel document is not in keeping with the principle of lawfulness . This does not however mean that expulsion on the basis of such a document is unlawful vis - à - vis the appellant , given that this defect concerns the NORP internal legal order , that the appellant is under a legal obligation to leave the GPE and that the Minister ... has provided sufficient evidence that this document ... is accepted by third countries .

The fact that no agreement on expulsions exists between the GPE and the de facto authorities in the different parts of GPE does not rule out the possibility that in practice an alien may return to his country of origin using an ORG travel document . The manner in which an expulsion is carried out is unlawful only ... if on the basis , inter alia , of previous experience in comparable cases , it is likely that the alien concerned will not reach his intended destination or will otherwise encounter problems if he uses the documents issued to him . ”

In its DATE position paper on the return of rejected asylum seekers to GPE , the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ ORG ” ) stated , inter alia , the following :

“ Throughout the country , human rights violations remain endemic . These include murder , looting and destruction of property , use of child soldiers , kidnapping , discrimination of minorities , torture , unlawful arrest and detention , and denial of due process by local authorities . ...

The challenges faced by both PERSON and GPE in integrating NORP refugees back home remain a critical humanitarian , recovery and development concern . In both areas , CARDINAL of returnees from exile continue to live in slums on the outskirts of towns where they are often indistinguishable from other vulnerable groups , and as such face many of the same problems accessing basic social services and becoming self - reliant .

Combined with the fragility of GPE 's economy and the downturn of PERSON 's , their presence has increased competition over scarce resources . More sustained assistance is needed if they are to successfully integrate into these local economies . Without it , they could become a potential threat to the hard won peace and stability in both areas . ...

In view of the improvements in peace , security , stability and governance in northern GPE ( NORP and GPE ) , ORG is promoting the voluntary repatriation of NORP refugees originating from there . ...

In the case of GPE , ORG has assessed that the majority of refugees who fled areas which are now in the northern sector can safely return to their habitual areas of former abode , although their right to return is seriously challenged by the overstretched absorption capacity . Also , importantly , it can not be ruled out that some individuals originating from NORP and GPE may have a well - founded fear of persecution . Claims to this effect should therefore be dealt with in line with global standards of refugee status determination . A similar positive assessment can not be made for the southern sector of the country , where conflict , insecurity and lawlessness still dominate the situation in large areas . This is why ORG continues to encourage the granting of refugee status , or other forms of complementary protection , to those being forced to leave the southern sector . ...

Prior to arranging repatriation movements , ORG GPE requests clearance from the local authorities for all refugees wishing to repatriate to GPE . This is to ensure that repatriates are welcome in their area of return , and to avoid any negative consequences arising from their being possibly considered to belong to an area different than their chosen destination . This is of particular relevance in GPE , which , because it considers itself an independent state , considers non - Somalilanders as foreigners . In the case of the Puntland State of GPE , its LAW stipulate that any NORP who respects the provisions of LAW is allowed to reside in , travel through and conduct business in GPE . However , due to the over - stretched absorption capacity , the authorities , while respecting the provisions of their basic law , have grown wary of nonPuntlanders settling there in large numbers . Clan considerations play an important role . Generally , the lack of local clan and other support - systems forces most NORP who no dot not originate from the area to join the misery of the CARDINAL IDPs , who live in squalid conditions below the poverty line with very limited access to basic services and physical and legal protection .

It is essential to be aware of the overall impact of CARDINAL voluntary returns ( organized and spontaneous ) on the already over - stretched services and resources of GPE and GPE . As a result , in many cases the returnee population remains marginalized , often forced to live in squalid conditions and in a disturbing state of poverty . ...

... the DATE and DATE ORG for GPE single out returnees from exile as CARDINAL of the CARDINAL most vulnerable groups in GPE , together with IDPs and minorities . ...

For purposes of refugee status determination , as with regard to voluntary repatriation , ORG policy divides the country into north and south , i.e. areas recognized as being stable ( north ) and areas recognized as not yet stable because of the absence of civil administrative structures to guarantee security ( south ) . The areas administered by the NORP and GPE authorities fall into the northern sector of the country , and the rest into the southern sector . The CARDINAL sectors are roughly separated by a line that goes through the town of GPE . ...

The general pattern of human settlements prevailing in many parts of LOC , including GPE , is often characterized by common ethnic , tribal , religious and /or cultural factors , which enable access to land , resources and protection from members of the community . Consequently , this commonality appears to be the necessary condition to live in safety . In such situations , it would not be reasonable to expect someone to take up residence in an area or community where persons with a different ethnic , tribal , religious and/or cultural background are settled , or where they would otherwise be considered as aliens . The only conceivable alternative could be to move to the slums of a big city , where internal migrants from the countryside lead a precarious existence , often in appalling living conditions . Persons with a rural background may be rendered destitute there and thus be subjected to undue hardship . Therefore , it would be unreasonable to expect a person to move to an area in his or her own country other than one where he or she has ethnic , tribal , religious and/or cultural ties .

This is true also in GPE and GPE . They already host CARDINAL and CARDINAL IDPs respectively , which by far exceeds their absorption capacity . In the absence of clan protection and support , which means weak or negligible social networks , a NORP originating from another area would be likely to join the many other underprivileged IDPs who suffer from lack of protection , limited access to education and health services , vulnerability to sexual exploitation and abuse and labour exploitation , eviction , destruction and confiscation of assets . Depending on the goodwill of the local community and what meagre humanitarian assistance may be available , persons perceived as ' outsiders ' may be forced to live in a state of chronic humanitarian need and lack of respect for their rights . Specifically , in GPE , a self - proclaimed independent state , those not originating from this area ( ORG ) would be considered as foreigners , and face significant acceptance and integration problems , particularly taking into account the extremely difficult socio - economic situation of those native to the territory . ...

... ORG is of the view that the internal flight alternative is not applicable in the context of GPE . ...

ORG considers that persons originating from southern GPE are in need of international protection and objects to any involuntary return of rejected asylumseekers to the area south of the town of GPE .

Despite the fact that security , stability and governance prevail in GPE and to an increasing extent in GPE , the conditions are not generally favourable for the forced return of large numbers of rejected asylum - seekers . While the restoration of national protection , in line with protection standards applicable to all other citizens , is not likely to be a problem for persons originating from these areas , the weak economy , which offers few employment opportunities , and the lack of sufficient basic services , result in an environment which is not conducive to maintaining harmonious relations among the population . Therefore , ORG advises against indiscriminate involuntary returns . It is recommended that cases be reviewed individually , and that GPE take into consideration the particular circumstances of each case ( age , gender , health , ethnic / clan background , family situation , availability of socio - economic support ) , in order to determine whether possible return of the individuals / families in question can be sustainable , or whether they should be allowed to remain on their territory on humanitarian grounds .

In this regard , it should also be noted that women , children and adolescents face particular challenges upon return to GPE after a long stay in exile , which may have changed some of their habits and affected their ability to speak NORP without an unfamiliar accent . While it is not a policy of the authorities in NORP and GPE , returnees and deportees from further afar than the immediate region , or even from urban areas within the region , often face severe discrimination by their community on account of not being sufficiently NORP . A DATE ORG - OCHA report entitled ' A Gap in Their Hearts : the experience of separated NORP children ' concludes : ' PERSON - cultural separated NORP minors who are returned to their homeland under duress or through deception are in danger of harassment , extortion , rape and murder . ' Perceived unacceptable and culturally insensitive behaviour by girls results in harsher discrimination and punishment than for boys . While this study focuses on child smuggling and its consequences , the findings related to the treatment of returning youths to GPE are relevant also for other young NORP who are involuntarily returned to their homeland , after having been exposed and to a certain extent adapted to another culture . ...

With reference to what is said on the non - applicability of the internal flight alternative in GPE , it is ORG 's position that no NORP should be returned against his / her will to an area of the country , from where he / she does not originate . In this regard , considerations based on the prevailing clan system are of crucial importance . ”

On DATE the ORG Representative for GPE provided country of origin information in reply to queries from lawyers with ORG . The ORG stated , inter alia :

“ Particularly looking first at the situation of the IDPs located in GPE and GPE , ORG is clear in stating that there is a continued deterioration both in legal protection and in socio - economic security since the writing of ORG . This is chiefly due to coping mechanisms of the IDPs being stretched further and further with the prolongation of the conflict and the resulting exposure to extreme poverty and discrimination . ... In NORP society , protection is the responsibility of the clan and is a process that generally functions . However , IDPs and other minority groups are largely devoid of such benefactors . Consequently they are subject to exploitation ( both sexual and economic ) , denied access to services , subject to forced relocation and forced labour , restricted in their movements and otherwise discriminated against . ... [ T]he regional authorities of GPE are not likely to accept deportations or even to accept voluntary returns of persons not originating from the respective areas . In the case of GPE , it should be noted that the authorities , despite what is enshrined in their constitution , are very wary of non - PERSON coming to their territory . ”

NORP In DATE , ORG issued the following advisory on the return of NORP nationals to GPE :

“ CARDINAL . ORG issued its current position concerning returns to GPE in DATE . By way of this additional advisory , which complements and should be read alongside the position of DATE , ORG re - confirms that this position remains valid . Indeed , prevailing problems in GPE only support its continued validity and application .

NORP ... According to the Report of [ ORG ] independent expert on the situation of human rights in GPE PERSON , ' The right to life continues to be violated on an extensive scale in GPE . Most of the country is marked by insecurity and violence and the most insecure areas are in the south , notably the capital city GPE . ' ( ORG Human Rights , E / CN.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , paragraph CARDINAL )

... ORG underlines that an internal flight alternative is not applicable in GPE , as no effective protection can be expected to be available to a person in an area of the country , from where he / she does not originate . In this regard , considerations based on the prevailing clan system are of crucial importance .

Therefore , international protection should not be denied on the basis of an internal flight alternative . Such a denial would effectively condemn the persons in question to a form of internal displacement , which brings along a high risk of denial of basic human rights and violation of socio - economic rights , exacerbating the already high levels of poverty and instability for both the individual and the community . ...

NORP UNHCR acknowledges that not all NORP asylum seekers may qualify for refugee status under the CARDINAL Convention . However , ORG considers that asylum seekers originating from southern and central GPE are in need of international protection and , excepting exclusion grounds , should be granted , if not refugee status , then complementary forms of protection .

Correspondingly , ORG reiterates its call upon all governments to refrain from any forced returns to southern and central GPE until further notice .

As regards forced returns to northern GPE , while some returns are possible under certain conditions , notably where there are clan links within the area of return and effective clan protection , large - scale involuntary returns should be avoided . Persons not originating from northern GPE should not be forcibly returned there . ”

NORP This report , dated DATE , was commissioned by ORG and written by Professor PERSON . According to the author , while the chronic and widespread level of underdevelopment and insecurity in GPE – especially south - central GPE – places a large portion of the population at risk , some sections of the population are especially vulnerable to human rights abuses . CARDINAL of these groups are IDPs and members of minorities and weak clans . As regards the latter group , PERSON writes :

“ ... members of politically weak clans – minority groups , low status clans , and clans residing in areas where they are badly outnumbered or outgunned DATE are not able to call upon their clan for protection , and hence are vulnerable to predatory or abusive acts by criminals and militia with little hope of protection by the law . A report on human rights abuses by the GPE - based ORG in DATE concludes that most of the victims were from minority groups ' who have no clan affiliations as protection ' . ”

ORG . According to ORG , human rights violations in GPE remain endemic and very serious , despite some progress having been made since DATE . PERSON distinguishes the following CARDINAL categories of human rights violations : violations of the rules of armed combat ; human rights violations perpetrated by criminals which go unaddressed by local authorities ; and human rights violations perpetrated by the political authorities themselves . As regards the second category – criminal violations of human rights – he writes , inter alia :

“ The distinction between militia and criminal activity in GPE is very difficult to make , as warfare itself is an enterprise for looting and as armed conflict is increasingly linked to retaliation against criminal acts . Still , there are numerous instances in which crimes committed by ' civilians ' – be they criminals or unpaid militia engaging in criminal acts – are generating serious human rights crises . Certain types of crimes which qualify as human rights violations , such as murder , generally are addressed via blood payments or sharia courts . But some violations go almost entirely unpoliced . ”

ORG goes on to list a number of crimes whose perpetrators are rarely held accountable by the local authorities . These include discrimination against minorities , about which he writes :

“ Though presented as a homogeneous society , GPE features a number of lowstatus and minority groups which are frequently subject to abuse and exploitation . The NORP population is now the best known of these minorities ; representing MONEY of the total population , the NORP are prone to theft of their land , rape , forced labour , and a range of discriminatory behaviour . Minority and low status groups such as the NORP are afforded little protection under customary clan law and have virtually no recourse to a system of justice when victimised . Those who do bring complaints to clan , legal , or religious authorities place themselves at great risk of intimidation and assault . ”

In this report , dated DATE and written for the organisation ORG , Professor PERSON writes , inter alia , that “ the most important common element of personal security across all of GPE is clan affiliation . ” In his view , IDPs constitute the most vulnerable group in the country :

“ They are especially vulnerable as a group for several reasons : most are from weak , minority , agricultural clans , and hence easily abused with impunity ; nearly all are ' guests ' in territory dominated by larger clans , affording them less protection ( in some places , such as NORP , IDPs from south - central GPE are seen as ' foreigners ' with no legal rights or claims ) ; all are destitute and survive on short - term wage labour and periodic infusions of humanitarian aid ; and most reside in camps which are controlled by ' camp managers ' , militiamen who restrict their movement and who divert assistance away from the IDPs . ”

According to ORG , “ ... the zone of GPE from GPE to the NORP border is the most conflict - ridden and lawless portion of the country ” . Puntland is described as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL of the most difficult regions to read politically in DATE : at times it exhibits impressive levels of stability , reconciliation , unity and modest government capacity , at other times it lurches toward what appears to be political crisis and collapse . ... [ T]hroughout its recent political confrontations , GPE has remained relatively free from violent crime and lawlessness . ...

Personal security in GPE has been and remains relatively good . ... CARDINAL growing exception to this rule is the increasing number of IDPs and migrant labourers from south - central GPE who now reside in GPE 's main towns of GPE , PERSON and PERSON . These outsiders do not enjoy full rights and protection in customary law ; the poorest of the migrants reside in sprawling slums and are subject to abuses for which there is little recourse . ”

PERSON is said to have remained “ a zone of impressive law and order ... , with very low crime rates and a high degree of public safety ” .

In this report , published on DATE , ORG urgently called on ORG , which was about to begin a DATE transitional period intended to bring GPE back into the international community of nations , to make human rights protection one of its central and constant aims . Under the heading “ Protection of minority rights ” , the report states as follows :

“ The minority groups , who have no armed militias , have been extremely vulnerable during the period of state collapse and absence of a justice system and rule of law to killing , torture , rape , kidnapping for ransom , and looting of land and property with impunity by faction militias and clan members . Such incidents are still commonly reported and are being documented by local human rights NGOs . ”

The “ Operational Guidance Note GPE ” , issued on DATE , contained a summary of the general , political and human rights situation in GPE and provided information on the nature and handling of asylum claims frequently received from nationals / residents of that country .

The Note stated that , although the country 's human rights record remained poor and serious human rights abuses continued in DATE , the human rights situation was better in NORP and GPE than in other parts of GPE . It further stated that NORP society was characterised by membership of clan families ( which were sub - divided into clans and subclans ) or membership of minority groups , and that an individual 's position depended to a large extent on his or her clan origins . In general terms , a person should be safe in an area controlled by his or her clan , and any person , irrespective of clan or ethnic origin , would be safe from general clan - based persecution in GPE and GPE . The chronic and widespread level of underdevelopment in GPE made a large portion of the population vulnerable not only to humanitarian crisis , but also to violations of their human rights .

In respect of persons belonging to the PERSON minority , the Note stated the following :

“ Treatment . NORP with no clan affiliation are the most vulnerable to serious human rights violations , including predatory acts by criminals and militias , as well as economic , political , cultural and social discrimination . These groups comprise CARDINAL people , or CARDINAL of the NORP population and include the PERSON ( PERSON ) ...

The PERSON are an urban people of NORP origin . They all lost property during the war and the majority of PERSON fled to GPE . Those that remain live mainly in the coastal cities of GPE , PERSON and PERSON . The situation of the PERSON remaining in GPE is difficult , as they can not rebuild their businesses in the presence of clan militias . As of DATE , PERCENT of the PERSON population in GPE had left the city as a consequence of civil war and lack of security . The majority of PERSON who are still in GPE are older people who live in GPE 's traditional PERSON district , PERSON which is controlled by militias of the PERSON sub - clan , PERSON . Most homes belonging to the PERSON ... in GPE had been taken over by members of clan militias , although sometimes the clan occupants allowed them to reside in CARDINAL room .

Sufficiency of protection . Minority groups based in southern or central GPE that are politically and economically the weakest and are culturally and ethnically distinct from NORP clan families such as the PERSON ( PERSON ) ... are not able to secure protection from any major clan family or related sub - clan in these regions . They are vulnerable to discrimination and exclusion wherever they reside . ...

Internal relocation . As PERSON ( PERSON ) ... are vulnerable to discrimination and exclusion by major clan and sub - clan groups throughout southern and central GPE , internal relocation within these regions is not a reasonable option . The possibility of internal relocation to NORP or GPE is restricted ; in these areas the authorities have made it clear that they would only admit to the territory they control those who are of the same clan or who were previously resident in that particular area .

Conclusion . PERSON ( PERSON ) ... are part of the underclass in NORP society and are subject to political and economic exclusion due mainly to them being culturally and ethnically unconnected to any major clan group . They are usually unable to secure protection from any clan group and are therefore in a vulnerable position wherever they reside in southern and central GPE . ... [ I]ndividual applicants who have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that they are of PERSON ( PERSON ) origins from southern or central GPE are likely to encounter illtreatment amounting to persecution . The grant of asylum in such cases is therefore likely to be appropriate . ”

NORP The executive summary of this report , which was published on DATE , states as follows :

“ GPE has been drifting toward a new war since ORG ( TFG ) was formed in DATE but the trend has recently accelerated dramatically . The stand - off between the ORG and its NORP ally on the one hand , and ORG , which now control GPE , on the other , threatens to escalate into a wider conflict that would consume much of the south , destabilise peaceful territories like NORP and GPE and possibly involve terrorist attacks in neighbouring countries unless urgent efforts are made by both sides and the international community to put together a government of national unity . ”

NORP This report , which appeared on ORG website on DATE , tells of CARDINAL NORP immigration officials having been apprehended in PERSON , the NORP capital , when they arrived there on a flight from GPE with a man they had deported from GPE . In the report , NORP 's Minister of Aviation is quoted as saying that the men did not have visas to enter PERSON or the prior consent necessary to deliver a deportee there , and that the deportee had been sent back to GPE on the flight on which he had arrived .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);No violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura

“ Transfer to another jurisdiction shall mean the transfer to a jurisdiction one degree lower than the one in which the person concerned is currently working , for a minimum term of service , if :

a ) he / she undermines the honour and dignity of the judiciary and respect for his / her own position as a judge by his / her conduct and relations .

b ) if he / she by his / her action and conduct gives the impression that he / she can not perform his / her duty in a correct and an impartial manner .