International law

Discrimination; intérêt supérieur de l’enfant; développement de l’enfant; droit de l’enfant d’être entendu dans toute procédure judiciaire ou administrative l’intéressant; protection et assistance humanitaire voulues pour les enfants réfugiés; droit de l’enfant de jouir du meilleur état de santé possible; traitements inhumains ou dégradants

6 October 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Children's rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness - Statelessness | Countries: Bulgaria - Switzerland - Syrian Arab Republic

Risque pour la vie et risque de torture ou de mauvais traitements en cas d’expulsion vers le pays d’origine

22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Committee Against Torture (CAT) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Convention against Torture (CAT) - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: Eritrea - Switzerland

(i)Said [2016] EWCA Civ 442 is not to be read to exclude the possibility that Article 3 ECHR could be engaged by conditions of extreme material deprivation. Factors to be considered include the location where the harm arises, and whether it results from deliberate action or omission. (ii) In cases where the material deprivation is not intentionally caused the threshold is the modified N test set out in AM (Zimbabwe) [2020] UKSC 17. The question will be whether conditions are such that there is a real risk that the individual concerned will be exposed to intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy. (iii) The Qualification Directive continues to have direct effect following the UK withdrawal from the EU.

22 July 2021 | Judicial Body: United Kingdom: Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Livelihoods | Countries: Somalia - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

May 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports

The Committee considered that the State party failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Afghanistan, in particular taking into account his father’s alleged threats of revenge and his trauma as a result of parental abuse. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the State party failed to give due consideration to the consequences of the author’s personal situation in Afghanistan and concludes that his removal to Afghanistan by the State party would constitute a violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.

30 April 2021 | Judicial Body: UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Human rights law | Countries: Afghanistan - Sweden

In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Higher Administrative Court, Baden-Württemberg, Germany) as follows: 1. Article 15(c), read in conjunction with Article 2(f), of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as precluding a national practice whereby a finding of serious and individual threat to a civilian’s life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict, within the meaning of that provision, can be made, in a case where that civilian is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his or her circumstances, only if the ratio between the number of casualties in the area in question and the total number of individuals making up the population of that area reaches a fixed threshold. 2. In order to verify the level of the degree of indiscriminate violence of the armed conflict, for the purposes of determining whether there is a real risk of serious harm within the meaning of Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95, it is necessary to carry out a comprehensive assessment, both quantitative and qualitative in nature, of all relevant facts characterising that conflict, based on the collection of objective, reliable and up-to-date information including, in particular, the geographical scope of the situation of indiscriminate violence, the actual destination of the applicant in the event that he or she is returned to the relevant country or region, the intensity of the armed confrontations, the duration of the conflict, the level of organisation of the armed forces involved, the number of civilians killed, injured or displaced as a result of the fighting, and the nature of the methods or tactics of warfare employed by the parties to the conflict.

24 February 2021 | Judicial Body: European Union: Court of Justice of the European Union | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): EU Qualification Directive | Countries: Afghanistan - Germany

January 2021 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: General Comments/Recommendations

31 December 2020 | Publisher: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses

8 December 2020 | Publisher: Americas - Miscellaneous | Document type: Resolutions/Recommendations/Declarations