Fleeing Persecution Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom

implement<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> Convention’. 18 <strong>Persecution</strong> is frequently associated with torture and may also
<strong>in</strong>corporate ‘cruel, <strong>in</strong>human or degrad<strong>in</strong>g treatment or punishment’. 19 The counters of cruel,
<strong>in</strong>human and degrad<strong>in</strong>g treatment or punishment are malleable and yet to be firmly established.
Aga<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong> UNHCR suggests that ‘due to variations <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> psychological make-up of <strong>in</strong>dividuals and
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> circumstance of each case, <strong>in</strong>terpretations of what amounts to persecution are bound to
vary’. 20
Particularly where discrim<strong>in</strong>ation is <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>the</strong> UNHCR has suggested that persecution can be
claimed on ‘cumulative grounds’. Whereas an act of discrim<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> itself may not be sufficient to
claim refugee status, where this is comb<strong>in</strong>ed with ‘o<strong>the</strong>r adverse factors (e.g. a general
atmosphere of <strong>in</strong>security <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> country of orig<strong>in</strong>)’ 21 or ‘where a person has been <strong>the</strong> victim of a
number of discrim<strong>in</strong>atory measures’, 22 this may be enough to establish persecution. The two days
of hear<strong>in</strong>g provide a plethora of evidence of persistent, susta<strong>in</strong>ed and targeted gross acts of overt
discrim<strong>in</strong>ation towards constitutionally-recognised religious m<strong>in</strong>ority groups <strong>in</strong>clud<strong>in</strong>g Ahmadis,
Christians and H<strong>in</strong>dus. This is reflected <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g threats to <strong>the</strong> lives and wellbe<strong>in</strong>g of
religious m<strong>in</strong>orities, physical and violent attacks by non-State actors, attacks, burn<strong>in</strong>gs and forcible
exclusion from <strong>the</strong>ir homes as well as persistent and real threat of <strong>the</strong> application of blasphemy
laws (should m<strong>in</strong>orities exercise <strong>the</strong>ir fundamental human rights of manifestation of <strong>the</strong>ir religion
or belief as enshr<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> Article 18 of <strong>the</strong> UDHR and Article 18 of <strong>the</strong> ICCPR).
While refugee status cannot be used as a means to avoid punishment for an offence <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> country
of orig<strong>in</strong>, <strong>the</strong>re are circumstances where <strong>the</strong> prosecution of crim<strong>in</strong>al laws by <strong>the</strong> State or <strong>the</strong>
punishment imposed can amount to ‘persecution’. Such a case can be established where e.g. <strong>the</strong>
crim<strong>in</strong>al law offences target a particular religious or racial community. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, persecution
can also be evidenced <strong>in</strong>ter alia through <strong>the</strong> procedural application of vague and arbitrary crim<strong>in</strong>al
laws or through application of pr<strong>in</strong>ciples contrary to natural justice or <strong>in</strong> cases where punishment
awarded is excessive.
A fur<strong>the</strong>r question relates to persecution based on economic discrim<strong>in</strong>ation. State practice
generally tends to bifurcate between ‘economic migrants’ and refugees. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong>
l<strong>in</strong>e between economic discrim<strong>in</strong>ation and denial of fundamental rights is frequently blurred.
Discrim<strong>in</strong>ation such as <strong>in</strong>stances of deliberate denials of employment or deprivation of
opportunities to earn a liv<strong>in</strong>g should be considered as sufficiently serious to be categorised as
persecution. 23 O<strong>the</strong>r <strong>in</strong>stances of socio-economic rights could be categorised as ‘persecution’.
Denial of <strong>the</strong> right to receive education has been recognised as a form of persecution for <strong>the</strong>
purposes of <strong>the</strong> Convention. 24 Similarly deliberate and systematic denial of health care could also
form <strong>the</strong> basis of a successful refugee claims. A common thread <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> successful reliance on <strong>the</strong>
violations of socio-economic rights is that denials of rights have been deliberate and discrim<strong>in</strong>atory
and have been based on one or more grounds as laid out <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 1951 Convention.
18
J Fitzpatrick, ‘Revitaliz<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> 1951 Convention’ 9 Harvard Human Rights Journal (1996) 229 at p. 240.
19
Goodw<strong>in</strong>-Gill and McAdam, The Refugee <strong>in</strong> International Law (Oxford University Press, 2007) at pp.90–91.
20
UNHCR Handbook, supra n.39, para. 52.
21
Ibid., para.53.
22
Ibid., para.55; See also, Urim Gashi, Astrit Nikshiqi v SSHD, Appeal No: 13695 HX-75677-95,HX/75478/95
22/07/1996
23
The <strong>UK</strong> courts have recognized that a person’s <strong>in</strong>ability to secure employment for a convention reason,
presents a ‘serious issue’ of an exam<strong>in</strong>ation as to whe<strong>the</strong>r this amounts to persecution. He v. Secretary of
State for <strong>the</strong> Home Department [2002] EWCA 1150, [2002] Imm AR 590 at paras 26, 38. Similar position has
been advanced by Australian Courts see Prahastono v. M<strong>in</strong>ister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1997)
7 FCR 260 at 267.
24
See Ali v Canada (M<strong>in</strong>ister of Citizenship and Immigration) [1997] 1 FCD 26.
14