July 11, 2006
Press Release from Iranian Refugees’ Alliance, Inc.
Iranian refugees win their case against Turkey in
international court, UN Refugee Agency’s perverse decision condemned.
On June 22, 2006 the European Court of Human
Rights in Strasburg announced its judgment
on the case of D. and Others v.
"We are
pleased with the Court’s ruling for validating the applicants’ fear of
persecution in Iran and permanently preventing their deportation,” said Iranian
Refugees’ Alliance’s director, Deljou Abadi, who has represented the applicants before the
Court. "The Court obviously has
limited itself to a small part of the applicants’ complaints, but at a time
when there is no tribunal to provide any measure of justice whatsoever to
refugee applicants whose cases are unjustly rejected by UNHCR and who are as a
result deported to their country of persecution, even a minimal remedy can save
lives.”
Mr. D. and Mrs. S. are from Sunni Kurdish
and Shi’ite Azeri families, respectively. Having been
arrested, detained and tortured previously by Iranian authorities for political
reasons, D. fled to
As
In
their application to the Court, Mr. D. & Mrs. S. alleged that by expelling
them to
In its ruling on the applicants’ Article 3
complaints, the Court, limiting its examination to Mrs. S.’s
impending sentence of 100 lash strokes, held that her expulsion to
The Court particularly criticized UNHCR’s
unsubstantiated assertion that “in view of her state of health” Mrs. S.’s sentence had been “reduced” to a “symbolic” punishment
of a single stroke administered with a bundle of 100 lashes. The Court found it
not only factually incorrect, but also a misqualification
of such punishment’s inherent “inhuman” character. “Even if UNHCR’s allegation
were true”, the Court added, “although the applicant would be spared more
grievous injury, her punishment - whereby she would be treated as an object in
the power of the authorities – still constitutes an assault on precisely that
which is one of the main purposes of Article 3 to protect, namely her personal
dignity and her mental and physical integrity.” [unofficial
translation from French]
With respect to the applicants’ other
complaints, the Court rejected the government’s preliminary objection that
applicants could have contested their deportation order in the administrative
court and agreed with the applicants that such a remedy would not be effective.
However, it held without any reasoning that its finding under Article 3 made it
unnecessary to examine the case under Article 13 and Article 14. Applicants
complaints under Articles 13 and 14 included the authorities’: 1) failure to
inform them of their rejection reasons, 2) failure to conduct even an
appearance of an examination of their application throughout the asylum
procedures and even before the Court, 3) failure to provide legal assistance,
proper information and adequate translation, 4) failure to set up an effective appeal system, and 5) no-questions-asked reliance on UNHCR’s
decision without any scrutiny of its substance or its fairness.
In regard to the applicants’ request for “just
satisfaction” under Article 41 of the Convention, the Court considered that the
finding of a potential breach of the Convention constituted in itself
sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the
applicants and awarded the applicants 5,000 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses.
“Considering the
gravity and clarity of this case, it is a pity that the Court opted for the
minimum possible examination” said Abadi. “After experiencing six
years of total rightlessness, ineptitude and secrecy,
öD. and S. and their daughter certainly deserved
a stronger and broader condemnation of the authorities’ actions and inactions. Had the Court proceeded with even one of the
applicants’ other complaints, particularly those which deal with procedural
issues, it would have inevitably found violations of basic fairness standards
required by any refugee status determination worth its name. Such finding perhaps would have made it possible for other
refugee applicants going through similar experiences to benefit more
significantly from the Court’s ruling.”
The judgment is available in French at the
Court’s website www.echr.coe.int.
For further information regarding this case
please contact the Iranian Refugees’ Alliance, Inc. at the address below.
Iranian Refugees' Alliance, Inc., is a non-profit NGO in the
====================
Iranian Refugees' Alliance, Inc.
Cooper Station
tel/fax: 212-260-7460
email: irainc@irainc.org
url: www.irainc.org