TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR1 (Government): By not invoking his conversion during the ordinary domestic asylum proceedings, the applicant himself has contributed to the fact that the thorough assessment has not taken place concerning whether or not his conversion was based on a genuine personal religious conviction.
GR1 (Government): With regard to the information at hand, the government takes the view that during the national proceedings, the applicant did not plausibly demonstrate that he was at risk of persecution on account of his religious beliefs, as he did not invoke his conversion as a ground for asylum.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, to sum up this part,
GR1 (Government): it is the government's opinion that the Swedish authorities and courts carried out a proper assessment of whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention if the deportation order was implemented.
GR1 (Government): There are no indications that the assessment of the domestic authorities and courts was inadequate or that the outcome of their proceedings was arbitrary.
GR1 (Government): Secondly, with regard to the question of whether the applicant would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention, the government would like to submit the following.
GR1 (Government): As regards to the applicant's alleged political activities in Iran, the Swedish authorities and courts have found that these activities were not of such a nature or extent that he would risk ill treatment on that ground upon his return to Iran.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, as also noted by the chamber of this court, the applicant has not been summoned to appear before court in Iran since 2009.
GR1 (Government): His family in Iran has not been targeted because of his political activities, and he has not claimed to have continued his political activities following his arrival in Sweden.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, the national migration authorities and courts have found that the documents submitted by the applicant have not corroborated his cited need for protection.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, the government would like to clarify that the person involved in ongoing court proceedings in Iran generally has the possibility to obtain more information about the case through a legal representative, relatives, or friends.
GR1 (Government): Details of the parties, case number, et cetera, are public documents.
GR1 (Government): However, the applicant has not submitted any further information to substantiate his need for protection in this regard.
GR1 (Government): Mr. President, in view of this, the government concurs
GR1 (Government): with the opinions of the national authorities and courts and the majority of the chamber of this court that the applicant has failed to substantiate the claim that his alleged political activities in Iran have attracted the interests of the Iranian authorities.
GR1 (Government): Moving on to the applicant's invoked need for protection due to his conversion to Christianity, the government would like to stress that this is not a result of events or actions in his home country, but rather a consequence of actions undertaken during his stay in Sweden.
GR1 (Government): His claim is, therefore, to be regarded as a surplus claim for international protection.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, the government would like to emphasize what is cited in the UNHCR's guidelines, that where individuals convert after their departure from their country of origin, this may have the effect of creating a surplus claim, and that in such situations, particular credibility concerns tend to arise.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, as the applicant did not claim international protection due to his conversion to Christianity until the stage of enforcement of the expulsion order, the government finds, like the domestic migration authorities, and notwithstanding the applicant's explanation in this regard, that the applicant's perceived need for protection must be questioned.
GR1 (Government): The government also shares the view of the majority of the chamber of the court that there is nothing to indicate that the Iranian authorities have become aware of the applicant's conversion to Christianity.
GR1 (Government): In the government's view, there is accordingly no reason to believe that the applicant has been attributed a new religious belief by the Iranian authorities.
GR1 (Government): Thirdly, I would like to address the question raised by the grand chamber regarding freedom of religion pursuant to Article 9.
GR1 (Government): The prerequisite for the applicability of the rights enshrined in Article 9 of the Convention is that the alleged religious belief is based on a real and genuine conviction.
GR1 (Government): In the present case, it must therefore reasonably be expected that the applicant can demonstrate convincingly that his religious conviction is real and genuine.
GR1 (Government): Hence, unless it has been established that the alleged belief is genuine, the right to freedom of religion is not relevant in assessing an asylum claim.
GR1 (Government): The government would hereby like to stress that during the national proceedings, there was limited knowledge of what kind of religious practice the applicant considers essential in order for him to preserve his religious identity.
GR1 (Government): As is clear from Appendix 21 of the submission by the applicant containing his witness statement, religion was never his primary ground for seeking protection.
GR1 (Government): He left Iran due to his activity there before he became a Christian.
GR1 (Government): He states that he did not want to rely on religion as a ground for asylum, since it was not his reason for seeking asylum.
GR1 (Government): He says in his witness statement that his counsel said that he should raise the fact that he had converted.
GR1 (Government): He states that his faith was a private matter and that he had other grounds for being allowed to stay.
GR1 (Government): The government contends that the applicant did not demonstrate during the national ordinary proceedings that his conversion is based on a genuine conviction or, if he were returned to Iran, that he had the intentions of doing so as a convert and practicing the Christian religion there.
GR1 (Government): He did, let alone not make clear as to how or to which extent he, upon return, would practice his religious beliefs.
GR1 (Government): The right to freedom of religion, according to Article 9 of the Convention, was subsequently not addressed during the national proceedings, and it is the government's opinion that the national migration authorities were thus not required to apply the principles set out in the cases referred to by the Grand Chamber in the applicant's case, Leyla Sahin v. Turkey and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. YNZ.
GR1 (Government): As has been recognized by this court, as well as the European Court of Justice, in the judgments referred to, which I just quoted, the right to freedom of religion entails a right to manifest one's beliefs in private as well as in public if one so wishes.
GR1 (Government): In this regard, the government would hereby like to refer to the general legal position issued by the Director General for Legal Affairs at the Swedish Migration Board in 2012, which also recognizes that the right to freedom of religion entails a right to manifest one's beliefs in public and that it cannot be expected that an applicant should refrain from doing so in order to avoid persecution.
GR1 (Government): The government thus agrees with the principles set out in the above-mentioned judgments and contends that in a case where the alleged religious conviction is deemed genuine, the national authorities are required to assess the risk in accordance with the principles set out in these cited cases.
GR1 (Government): Lastly, Mr. President, the government holds,
GR1 (Government): against this background, that the applicant has not plausibly demonstrated that on account of his conversion to Christianity, he would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 2 or 3 of the Convention if the deportation order were implemented.
GR1 (Government): Furthermore, it is the government's view that the Swedish migration authorities and courts did carry out a proper assessment of whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would face such a risk.
GR1 (Government): In addition, the government concludes that since the applicant did not sufficiently establish the genuineness of his alleged conviction during the national proceedings, the right to freedom of religion under Article 9 of the Convention was not addressed and the national migration authorities were therefore not required to apply the principles set out in the above-mentioned cases of Leyla Sahin v. Turkey
GR1 (Government): and Bundesrepublik Deutschland v. Weyand Zed
GR1 (Government): in the applicant's case.
GR1 (Government): In conclusion, the government invites the court to hold that there has been no violation of Articles 2, 3, or 9 of the Convention in the present case.
GR1 (Government): Finally, let me just draw the Grand Chamber's attention to the fact that the decision to expel the applicant will become statute barred on 8 June 2015, i.e. four years from the decision on 8 June 2011
GR1 (Government): by the Migration Court of Appeal to refuse leave of appeal.
GR1 (Government): In view of this, the government would like to stress the importance that the Grand Chamber decides the case in good time before that date.
GR1 (Government): distinguished members of the court.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Thank you, Mr. Rönquist.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I turn to the Judges, Judge Spano.
Robert Spano (Judge): I have two questions for the government that I would like to present.
Robert Spano (Judge): The government observes that paragraph 52 of their observations, and I quote, the applicant has failed to substantiate any claim that the Iranian authorities would have any special interest in him.
Robert Spano (Judge): I would like to ask as clearly as possible, what does the government consider to be the evidentiary weight or significance in this respect of the written summons by the Revolutionary Court presented to the applicant that he should attend Evin Prison in Teheran on 2 November 2009?
Robert Spano (Judge): And I would here like to refer to the applicant's contention here that the Migration Court, and this is paragraph 83 of the applicant's observations, that the Migration Court expressed no doubt as to the validity of F.G.'s summons to attend the Revolutionary Court on 2 November 2009.
Robert Spano (Judge): And I put this question to the government in light of the fact that the government considers that it has not been demonstrated that the Iranian authorities have a special interest in the applicant.
Robert Spano (Judge): My second question deals with the conclusion, which is I think the crux of this case, the government contends that paragraph 57 and the counsel for the government reiterated this today.
Robert Spano (Judge): The government concludes that the applicant has not plausibly demonstrated that he would, on account of his conversion to Christianity, face a real risk of being subjected to ill treatment.
Robert Spano (Judge): Does this conclusion, because I didn't quite understand this issue, does this conclusion apply not only to the facts as established in 2011 and 12 by the migration authorities at domestic level?
Robert Spano (Judge): Or is it also the government's submission today that were the Grand Chamber to decide the issue in accordance with the materials submitted as of this date, the applicant has not made such a plausible claim?
Robert Spano (Judge): I would like an answer to that.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci, Judge Jäderblom.
Helena Jäderblom (Judge): Thank you.
Helena Jäderblom (Judge): I have a question for the applicant.
Helena Jäderblom (Judge): In a written statement to the court on the 13th of September this year, the applicant states that his family can never accept the fact that he has converted and that his friends will never tolerate it.
Helena Jäderblom (Judge): In view of this, does the applicant consider that there is a potential risk that his family and friends will find out about his conversion should he practice it in Iran by way of, for instance, publications of religious texts on the internet or being active in a church?
Helena Jäderblom (Judge): And if they did find out about it, what could be the consequences for the applicant in his relations with them?
Helena Jäderblom (Judge): I also have a question for the government.
Helena Jäderblom (Judge): In order to better understand how familiar the Swedish authorities and courts are with the situation of Christian converts in Iran, I would like to know if the government know how common it is that Iranian asylum seekers invoke surplus conversions as a ground of asylum in Sweden.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): Merci, Monsieur le Président.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): I have first a factual clarification.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): Referring to paragraph 41 of the chamber judgment and then to the conclusion, paragraph 42 of the chamber judgment, my understanding is that the applicant failed to raise or did not prefer to raise the question of his conversion, whereas today the government is alleging that he failed to substantiate.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): And I see a nuance between these two positions.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): Then my second point would go to a reference, and I apologize for this, is a reference to yesterday's judgment of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, a judgment of the grand chamber of that court.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): And the court says in paragraph 56, I quote, I'm sorry, in French, if the Member States consider that it normally belongs to the applicant to present all the necessary elements to support his request, this is more than just providing elements of nature to establish his own sexual orientation, in that case, a religious orientation in this case, it is no less important that it is up to the concerned Member State to cooperate with this applicant at the stage of determining the relevant elements of this request, in accordance with article 4, paragraph 1 of the Directive 2004-83.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): So my question is, what would be the impact of this interpretation for this case?
Ledi Bianku (Judge): And then my final question, Mr. President,
Ledi Bianku (Judge): this court, since the early cases of Cruz Varas, Chahal, etc.,
Ledi Bianku (Judge): I might refer as well to Sufi and Elmi, paragraph 215, has used the notion of ex-nunc analysis, to which Judge Spano, if I understood well, referred to.
Ledi Bianku (Judge): Does this kind of analysis take place at national level as well?
Ledi Bianku (Judge): So do the national authorities take into account the current circumstances, not only of the destination state, but also of the applicant?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Just to complement the question by Judge Ledi Bianku, the case referred to is the number C-14813 and C-15013.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): It was delivered yesterday by the European Court in Luxembourg.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): judge Pinto de Albuquerque.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): One question for the applicant, and one question for the government.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Starting with the government.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): The applicant was a Muslim, and he converted to Christian belief.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): This is a crime in Iran, and a very serious crime.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): It's a crime of apostasy.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): And it's a capital offense, punished with death.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Iran punishes with death penalty those Muslim who convert to other beliefs.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): More recently, prosecutors have relied on other offenses, such as an attempt to the security of the state, which is also a capital offense.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Can the government guarantee today to this plenary that if there is a new assessment of the applicant's situation at the national level, he's not going to be sent to a country where he faces the death penalty?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): I repeat, in the case the court finds eventually only a procedural violation of Article Two or Three, and the new procedure is launched at the national level, can the government guarantee today that this person, at the end of the day, at the end of that national proceeding, will not be sent to a country where he faces the death penalty?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): My question to the applicant.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): What has been the practical contribution of the applicant to his church?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): We have heard today that he leads a Bible studies group, that he has provided help with the church's website.
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Is there any other additional practical help that he has been willing to give to the church?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): What kind of contribution does he give to the life of his church?
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Judge): Could you please elaborate further on this practical life as a Christian of the applicant?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Merci, Judge De Gaetano.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): My question is addressed to the government and follows in a sense from Judge Spano's question.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): Apart from what the applicant did or did not do before the domestic tribunals, and apart from what the domestic tribunals concluded, I would like to know, because I'm still not quite sure what the answer to this question is, what is the government's position today?
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): Is it of the view that the applicant is a real convert to Christianity, or is it of the view that this was not a genuine conversion, but simply possibly a means to an end?
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): That is the question I would like to know.
Vincent A. De Gaetano (Judge): What is the government's view today on this point?
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): There are no further questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): So we will have a break now, and we will resume the hearing at 1045.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): I give the floor to Mr Loveday.
AP1 (Applicant): there was a question first from Judge Yerdebloom about the effect on the applicant's family relations and relations with his friends if he were to go to Iran and tell them that he's converted.
AP1 (Applicant): We've sought in the time available to take instructions from the applicant by telephone with an interpreter.
AP1 (Applicant): In the limited time available, I can only relay so much.
AP1 (Applicant): But his answer was that he would tell his family, he would feel obliged to, they wouldn't accept it.
AP1 (Applicant): He says they wouldn't accept it because they come from Iran.
AP1 (Applicant): They wouldn't understand.
AP1 (Applicant): He says that in order for them to understand, they would have to come to a country like Sweden, a free country.
AP1 (Applicant): Then, he thinks and hopes, they would be able to understand.
AP1 (Applicant): But if he goes there to meet them there, they won't.
AP1 (Applicant): He says that he thinks they will disown him.
AP1 (Applicant): He hopes in time that they would change their mind, that he would be able to persuade them.
AP1 (Applicant): But he says that he thinks they would disown him.
AP1 (Applicant): I did ask him what he thinks about whether they would disclose it to anyone else.
AP1 (Applicant): And he says that he doesn't think that they would.
AP1 (Applicant): He hoped that they wouldn't mention to anyone else that he converted because they love him.
AP1 (Applicant): But he did say that he can't rule out the risk.
AP1 (Applicant): As to his friends, he clarified paragraph 28 of his witness statement before this court.
AP1 (Applicant): And he said that when he says about his friends there, in fact, there are some friends of his who he thinks would probably be OK.
AP1 (Applicant): Religion isn't so important to them as individuals.
AP1 (Applicant): So he could tell them without it being a problem, is what he said.
AP1 (Applicant): But he said that there are other friends for whom it would be important.
AP1 (Applicant): They would disown him.
AP1 (Applicant): And he wouldn't be able to trust that they wouldn't mention it to anyone else.
AP1 (Applicant): There was also a question from Judge Pinto de Albuquerque about the practical manifestations of the applicant's faith.
AP1 (Applicant): And I should preface this by saying that I've tried deliberately in this hearing to avoid mentioning anything that could identify the client.
AP1 (Applicant): And in those circumstances, I hope and trust it's enough for me to refer you to specific paragraphs in his witness statement where he does explain and where others explain in their witness statement exactly what his practical engagement in the church is today.
AP1 (Applicant): And I would refer the court to the applicant's own witness statement, which is in English at appendix 23, in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, and 25 in particular.
AP1 (Applicant): And in the witness statement of his former pastor, which is in English at appendix 24, in paragraphs 18, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 33 in particular.
AP1 (Applicant): In response to the government's submissions, I have really only two points to make.
AP1 (Applicant): And the first is the suggestion that the national authorities have limited evidence of how the applicant practices his faith as things stood at the time.
AP1 (Applicant): And there are two responses to that.
AP1 (Applicant): The first is that on any view, they did have the evidence of what he said willingly in his asylum interview.
AP1 (Applicant): And there's an English translation of the relevant parts of that at appendix 4 of our case.
AP1 (Applicant): And it makes clear there the frequency of contact he was having with other Christians, what kind of things he was engaged in with his church, and so on.
AP1 (Applicant): So there's clear evidence there.
AP1 (Applicant): There's a further point, which is, as we have submitted, it was still incumbent, we would say, on the national authorities to ask, even if he were to manifest his faith privately, could that cause problems for him on return?
AP1 (Applicant): What would happen at the airport on return?
AP1 (Applicant): What would happen if someone asked him a question?
AP1 (Applicant): Should he lie?
AP1 (Applicant): Those questions needed to be asked and dealt with.
AP1 (Applicant): The other point I would say is that what we don't have, of course, is any record of what the migration court said to the applicant, which caused him to respond by saying, I don't want to talk about that.
AP1 (Applicant): It's private.
AP1 (Applicant): And the absence of any clear record of exactly what was said and the context of that, it would be, in my submission, very dangerous to investigate.
AP1 (Applicant): In my submission, very dangerous to assume that the court fulfilled what we would say is its obligation to properly consider the matter, to consider, just because he has said that some aspects of his faith are private, what does he mean by that?
AP1 (Applicant): How would that affect him on return?
AP1 (Applicant): Does it mean that everything to do with his faith will be private?
AP1 (Applicant): And that, we don't have a record of.
AP1 (Applicant): All we have, the government said that there's just a vague statement from the applicant.
AP1 (Applicant): Well, in fact, there's a vague record from the migration court of what the applicant was alleged to have said.
AP1 (Applicant): The other short point I wished to make was to address the situation which I, if I understood the government correctly, the situation that as to what would happen if the court now were to find that the national authorities did what they were required to do based on what they knew at the time or ought to have known at the time.
AP1 (Applicant): My understanding of that is that the government has said in that case, the court should not go on to deal with the question of substantive risk on return.