Universal-MigrationHRlaw-PG-no-6-Publications-PractitionersGuide-2014-eng

118 | PRACTITIONERS GUIDE No. 6
ment of the risk will most probably fail to provide an effective defence
for the State to demonstrate that it fully complied with its obligations
of non-refoulement. 337 In this regard, the European Court of Human
Rights has acknowledged that, “owing to the special situation in which
asylum seekers often find themselves, it is frequently necessary to give
them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to assessing the credibility
of their statements and the documents submitted in support thereof.
However, when information is presented which gives strong reasons to
question the veracity of an asylum seeker’s submissions, the individual
must provide a satisfactory explanation for the alleged discrepancies.” 338
In order to assess other relevant factors, such as the general situation
of the country, the exposure to the risk of a particular group or the inexistence
of State protection, reference will be made to other State parties
reports, judicial decisions, international organisations and agencies,
such as the UNHCR, international human rights bodies and reliable NGO
reports. 339 The European Court of Human Rights has explained that, in
relying on country information in non-refoulement cases, “consideration
must be given to its source, in particular its independence, reliability and
objectivity. In respect of reports, the authority and reputation of the author,
the seriousness of the investigations by means of which they were
compiled, the consistency of their conclusions and their corroboration by
other sources are all relevant considerations. [. . .] [C]onsideration must
[also] be given to the presence and reporting capacities of the author of
the material in the country in question.” 340 In their assessment, international
human rights bodies will consider the material put before them by
the parties but will also obtain information proprio motu if necessary. 341
337 Rubin Byahuranga v. Denmark, CCPR, op. cit., fn. 334, paras. 11.2–11.4; Hussain Khan
v. Canada, CAT, Communication No. 15/1994, Views of 18 November 1994, para. 12.3;
Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland, CAT, op. cit., fn. 327, para. 9.8: “In the present case, the
refusal of the competent Swiss authorities to take up the author’s request for review, based
on reasoning of a procedural nature, does not appear justified in the light of article 3 of the
Convention.”
338 S.A. v. Sweden, ECtHR, Application No. 66523/10, Judgment of 27 June 2013, para. 43;
K.A.B. v. Sweden, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 327, para. 70; A.A. and Others v. Sweden, ECtHR,
Application No. 14499/09, Judgment of 28 June 2012, para. 73.
339 Arkauz Arana v. France, CAT, Communication No. 63/1997, Views of 5 June 2000,
para. 11.4; Mutombo v. Switzerland, CAT, Communication No. 13/1993, Views of 27 April
1994, para. 9.5. See also, Karoui v. Sweden, CAT, Communication No. 185/2001, Views of
25 May 2002, para. 9; Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland, CAT, op. cit., fn. 327, para. 9.9; Paku
Kisoki v. Sweden, CAT, Communication No. 41/1996, Views of 8 May 1996, para. 9.5; Pelit
v. Azerbaijan, CAT Communication No. 281/2005, Views of 29 May 2007 para. 11; X, Y and
Z v. Sweden, CAT, Communication No. 61/1996, Views of 6 May 1998, para. 11.5; Na v.
The United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, paras. 119, 122; Dbouba v. Turkey, ECtHR,
Application No. 15916/09, Judgment of 13 July 2010, paras. 42–43; M.B. and Others v.
Turkey, ECtHR, Application No. 36009/08, Judgment of 15 June 2010, paras. 32–33.
340 Na v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, paras. 120–121.
341 Ibid., para. 119. Nnyanzi v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, para. 52; Saadi v. Italy,
ECtHR, op. cit., fn. 309, paras. 128–130.